The geopolitical trap into which Israel has fallen. What the 15 hours of direct confrontation with Iran tell us
Sunday night's standoff reveals a harsh reality for the Cabinet in Tel Aviv: As Washington pushes for a peace deal with Tehran, Israel's military leeway in the face of the Iranian-led axis is becoming increasingly limited.
Israeli bombings in Iran/PHOTO: X
For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the resumption of hostilities with Iran represented, at least for a few moments, an opportunity to demonstrate to his domestic electorate that he is still capable of taking a firm stand in front of the White House. However, the sudden ceasefire, after less than 15 hours of exchanges of blows, has left Israel and its leader in a precarious position, appearing more dependent than ever on the decisions of US President Donald Trump, writes The New York Times.
If Netanyahu's strategy was aimed at undermining the peace talks that Trump is courting heavily with Tehran, the result has been an obvious failure. Washington's swift pressure on both camps to halt the airstrikes forced Israel to abandon preparations for a new retaliation.
The new “security equation” in the region
This violent outbreak risks fundamentally changing the way regional actors calculate their response to aggression, and the new coordinates are not at all advantageous for Tel Aviv.
At this point, the deterrence equation has changed substantially. Iran can use its proxy in Lebanon, the Hezbollah group, to hit towns in northern Israel, any large-scale Israeli counterattack against Hezbollah in Lebanon can trigger a direct ballistic response from Iran on Israeli territory, and Washington will intervene almost immediately to limit the intensity and duration of any Israeli retaliation against Tehran.
“We are witnessing a major paradigm shift”explains Raz Zimmt, director of the Iran program at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Tel Aviv. According to him, the Tehran regime is acting with increased confidence, speculating on the American leader's reluctance to get involved in an extensive regional conflict.
Timeline of a controlled escalation
Tensions flared again just days after Washington announced a new ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon. Hezbollah has rejected the terms, and Israel has warned it will strike Beirut if its territory is attacked again.
As the Shiite group launched rockets on Sunday, Netanyahu ordered the bombing of the suburb of Dahieh, an undeniable Hezbollah stronghold in the south of the Lebanese capital. Tehran's response came hours later by firing about 30 ballistic missiles at Israel, a move doubled by a missile attack by Yemen's Houthi rebels on Monday.
Danny Citrinowicz, an analyst and former Israeli military intelligence officer, points out that both camps are trying to impose their own definition of deterrence: “Israel conveys that any attack on its cities means retaliation in Dahieh. On the other hand, Hezbollah and Tehran respond by establishing a direct parity between the suburbs of Beirut and the metropolis of Tel Aviv.”
The Tel Aviv dilemma and Washington's interest
Domestically, the show of force gave Netanyahu a boost to an increasingly restive base, showing he is not afraid to defy directives from Washington. His relationship with Trump was already going through a critical moment after a tense phone call in which the leader of the White House had harshly criticized him.
However, the strategic reality remains unchanged. Many Israeli officials and analysts fear that an eventual US-Iran deal would not provide full safeguards against Tehran's nuclear program, but would lift economic sanctions, allowing the Islamic Republic to more effectively fund its proxy network in the region.
“Unfortunately for Israel's plans, it is clear that Trump has a major strategic interest in getting a diplomatic deal,” Citrinowicz points out.
This dynamic highlights the structural vulnerability of Israel's strategy. Although the military partnership with the US provides an unparalleled technological and military security umbrella, the major drawback is that the final decision on the management, expansion or termination of hostilities rests entirely with the White House. As long as Washington refuses an open confrontation with Iran, Tel Aviv's offensive options remain severely limited, the NYT concludes.
