The US elections, not ceasefire talks, likely to shape Israel’s wars

 

Iranian politician and prosecutor Mostafa Pourmohammadi stares down Donal J. Trump in an Iranian election poster

By James M. Dorsey

If you value independent, fact-based analysis, please consider subscribing to my column and podcast. Paid subscribers help ensure the survival of The Turbulent World’s unvarnished journalism that lets the chips fall where they fall. You can contribute by clicking on the subscription button at https://jamesmdorsey.substack,com and choosing one of the subscription options.  To watch a video version of this story or listen to an audio podcast click here. 

Thank you for your support and loyalty. 

Next week’s US election rather than a US-led push for ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon, is likely to determine the course of Israel’s wars, no more so than with Iran.

A post-election escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran would overshadow, if not render obsolete whatever progress CIA Director Bill Burns may make on Gaza in talks in Cairo this week.

The same is true for President Joe Biden’s Middle East coordinator Brett McGurk and Lebanon negotiator Adam Hochstein, who were in Israel to advance a ceasefire agreement that Lebanese caretaker prime minister Najib Mikati initially said could be achieved within days.

Mr. Mikati and US officials base their optimism on a likely mistaken belief that Israel’s targeted assassination of Hezbollah and Hamas leaders and degrading of the two groups’ military capabilities has browbeaten them into submission.

The belief is fed by Hezbollah’s willingness to no longer make a Lebanon ceasefire dependent on an end to the war in Gaza.

Nevertheless, the group retains its capability to fire missiles at Israel and slow the advance of Israeli troops in southern Lebanon.

Interestingly, the greatest threat to Hezbollah’s survival may not be Israeli military power but the fact that it likely faces a different future compared to the aftermath of the 2006 Lebanon war.

Iran was then able and willing to replenish Hezbollah’s arsenal and bank accounts and help it rebuild the war-ravaged southern suburbs of Beirut and the towns and villages in the south of the country. This time around, Iran may not be as generous.

As a result, Iran and Hezbollah risk being blamed, if not held accountable, for the ravaging of Lebanon, which was already teetering on the brink of bankruptcy before the war.

Hezbollah’s vulnerability is magnified by the fact that it unilaterally started the war last year in support of Hamas, a day after the Palestinian group launched its October 7 attack on Israel.

“We’re in a big battle like never before. Hezbollah has not faced what Israel is now waging, not in 1982, not in 2006. It is a total war,” said a Hezbollah supporter as Israel kept its options in both Lebanon and Gaza open, awaiting the outcome of the November 5 US election.

In the meantime, Israel maintained its ferocious bombings in Gaza and Lebanon and insisted on ceasefire terms that neither Hamas nor Hezbollah was likely to accept., prompting Mr. Makati to strike a more pessimistic cord about the prospects of a halt to the war.

In Lebanon, Israel was demanding the right to intervene if and when it deemed necessary in violation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1701, the basis of the ceasefire talks.

Israel also wanted a US-led supervisory body to oversee the implementation of the resolution adopted in 2006 to end the then-Lebanon war.

The resolution calls for the Lebanese army to take control of all Lebanese territory, alongside a UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah’s withdrawal from the region.

Israel argues that the amendments of the resolution are necessary because 18 years after its adoption, 1701 has yet to be implemented.

All of this may be obsolete if Donald J. Trump wins the US election. Mr. Netanyahu has hinted that a Trump victory, unlike a Kamala Harris success, could be a green light to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

“Iran is striving to develop a stockpile of nuclear bombs to destroy us, equipped with long-range missiles, intercontinental missiles that Iran is trying to develop… Stopping the Iranian nuclear program is at the forefront of our minds, and for obvious reasons, I cannot share with you all our plans and actions in this regard,” Mr. Netanyahu said last month, two days after attacking Iranian military targets.

Speaking separately to Israeli military personnel, Mr. Netanyahu boasted that “the brash words of the leaders of the regime in Iran cannot cover up the fact that Israel has greater freedom of action in Iran today than ever before. We can reach anywhere in Iran as needed.”

The Israeli military strikes reportedly severely damaged Iran’s air defenses, leaving the country’s nuclear and ballistic missile facilities more vulnerable to attack.

The strikes constituted a restrained Israeli response to Iran’s October 1 missile barrage fired at Tel Aviv in an evolving Israeli-Iranian tit-for-tat with Mr. Netanyahu bowing to US pressure to refrain from targeting Iranian nuclear and oil facilities.

However, Mr. Netanyahu may no longer feel restrained if Mr. Trump wins the election.

In a phone call last month, Mr. Trump told Mr. Netanyahu to “do what you have to do” in Gaza and Lebanon but to get it done before he would take office on January 20 next year if he wins.

War-averse, Mr. Trump does not want the United States to be embroiled in foreign conflicts on his watch.

As a result, Mr. Netanyahu would have an almost three-month window of opportunity between November 6 and January 20 to strike at Iranian nuclear facilities.

Mr. Trump’s unpredictability may be a second reason Mr. Netanyahu may see the period before an inauguration as the time to strike.

“Trump’s record, his mercurial personality, and his public remarks on Israel during the campaign offer little to justify (Israeli) enthusiasm” for Mr. Trump, said Haaretz economics editor David E. Rosenberg.

Israelis remember Mr. Trump as the president who recognised Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear accord, and orchestrated the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco.

“The fact that Trump also proposed a peace plan that called for a Palestinian state and that he scotched Netanyahu’s plans to annex part of the West Bank seems to have been forgotten,” Mr. Rosenberg said.

The journalist noted that Messrs. Trump and Netanyahu could diverge on key issues, if the real estate mogul returns to the White House.

Once in office, Mr. Trump would favour sanctions rather than military operations to force Iran’s hand and could push for an Israeli policy towards the Palestinians more palatable to Saudi Arabia.

 

Saudi foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan talks on CNN about Israel and Palestine

Saudi Arabia has insisted that it would only establish diplomatic relations with Israel once the Jewish state commits to the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

Moreover, much like with North Korea, Mr. Trump could convince himself that he could broker a better nuclear deal with Iran than the one he discarded during his first presidency.

“Trump will never have to face voters again if he wins next week and can do as he chooses…  Trump isn’t the forgiving type and doesn’t take defiance lightly. If the two  (Trump and Netanyah) clash on Iran, Palestinian policy, or the terms for Saudi normalisation, the friendship could easily fall apart,” Mr. Rosenberg said.

M. Netanyahu is not the only Middle Eastern leader seeing a window of opportunity in the run-up to the inauguration of the next US president.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, reportedly has delayed an Iranian military response to Israel’s latest strikes until after the election to avoid boosting Mr. Trump’s chances of winning.

Mr. Netanyahu has long advocated military action to stop Iranian nuclear development in its tracks.

The prime minister was a driving force behind Mr. Trump’s withdrawal in 2018 from the international agreement negotiated under his predecessor, Barak Obama, that curbed the Iranian nuclear programme.

Mr. Trump used his withdrawal to exert ‘maximum pressure’ on Iran. The policy backfired by driving Iran closer to becoming a nuclear power.

Credit: CBN News

Concern that Iran could develop a weapon within a matter of months revived Mr. Netanyahu’s itch to use military force. Experts cautioned that strikes would delay but not destroy the programme and potentially push Iran to go for weaponisation.

Some analysts suggest that Israeli tactical successes in weakening Iran’s first line of defence, its non-state partners, particularly Hezbollah, and the damage Israel inflicted on the country’s air defences could present Iran with a stark choice: strike a deal with the United States or push ahead with becoming a nuclear power.

Recently elected Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian favours a deal that would give Iran sanctions relief.

“Tehran has never faced difficult choices like today,” said journalist Nadim Koteich.

Mr Koteich noted Iran knew that weaponisation “would inevitably spark an all-out conflict.” The regime’s problem, he said, was that it had no certainty a deal would not “jeopardise its domestic legitimacy” and spark anti-government protests.

Iran may not have the luxury of a choice if Mr. Trump wins the election and Mr. Netanyahu heeds his advice to get things done before the inauguration.

“Israel could not…bomb Iran like that without the Americans on its side. Trump has said he’s going to control Iran. He might make that kind of military action more likely,” said a person familiar with the Israeli leadership’s thinking.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is an Adjunct Senior Fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, and the author of the syndicated column and podcast, The Turbulent World with James M. Dorsey.