The Middle East is going to go from bad to worse. The past year has seen great upheaval in the region, beginning with the Hamas-led Oct. 7 invasion of Israel and the subsequent wars that followed in its wake. Israel is fighting a multifront conflict of varying intensities against Iranian proxies. But a final showdown, between Jerusalem and Tehran, looms — and it has been years in the making.
On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas and other Gaza-based Iranian proxies invaded Israel, murdering more than 1,200 people and taking hundreds hostage. Many were killed in the most barbaric fashion imaginable. The terrorists tortured family members in front of one another, burned the elderly alive in their homes, and committed mass rape. The invaders were proud of their handiwork, often filming it and, in some cases, even calling their parents to brag about their crimes.
Oct. 7, 2023, was the largest massacre of Jewish civilians since the Holocaust. Adjusting for population, far more people were murdered in Israel one year ago than were killed during the 9/11 terrorist attacks perpetrated by al Qaeda. It was a game changer, the sort of event that resets the chess board.
The attack caught Israel off guard. For years, Israeli policymakers had operated under the assumption that Hamas, the U.S.-designated terrorist group that has ruled the Gaza Strip for nearly two decades, could be managed. Copious amounts of aid could, it was thought, buy a degree of peace and quiet. Further, in the weeks and months leading up to the attack, many in the Israeli government were more concerned with threats on their northern border than Gaza to the south.
Hezbollah, the Lebanese-based terrorist group, had been steadily amassing an arsenal larger than that of many European nations. Hezbollah had even filmed itself practicing an invasion of the Jewish state, leading many Israeli defense officials to believe that the Iranian proxy to their north was a more immediate threat than the southern border.
Both Israeli credibility and deterrence took a hit after Oct. 7. To its enemies, Israel looked weak and vulnerable — traits that spell doom in a region that Winston Churchill once called “one of the hardest-hearted areas in the world.” Israel had to ensure that another Oct. 7 couldn’t take place. Efforts would be made to recover the hostages that Hamas had seized. But the foremost priority was the destruction of Hamas.
Nearly a year later, Hamas is decimated. Hamas’s senior leadership has been gutted, and nearly all of its battalions have been destroyed. Israel has gained footholds in key Hamas strongholds and taken out the group’s leader, Ismail Haniyeh, assassinating him while he was visiting his paymasters in Tehran.
With Hamas severely degraded, Israel turned its attention north. In recent weeks, the Israel Defense Forces eliminated top Hezbollah operatives, even using exploding pagers and walkie-talkies to target and take out terrorists while hindering the group’s ability to communicate and plan a counterresponse. On Sept. 27, a massive Israeli air strike took out Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s longtime leader and the man many credit with building the organization into a global network, with capabilities surpassing any other terrorist group. On Oct. 3, the man viewed as Nasrallah’s likely successor, Hashem Safieddine, was killed, allegedly along with Hezbollah’s Shura Council, the governing body of the organization. It has been, almost inarguably, the most successful counterterrorist campaign in modern history.
Still, an even greater fight awaits.
Both Hamas and Hezbollah are but tentacles of Tehran. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism. A theologically vested imperialist power, it seeks to dominate the Middle East. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, called for ushering in a new Islamic epoch, with Iran at its epicenter. Israel’s destruction is part and parcel of this goal. By destroying Israel, the Islamic Republic will have achieved a feat that has eluded previous Middle Eastern powers, from the Arab nationalists of the 1950s and 1960s to the Palestine Liberation Organization and other terrorists.
The regime’s strategy is simple: surround Israel, snakelike, with various proxies and destroy the Jewish state in a multifront war of attrition. Tehran has spent years, decades, in fact, working to achieve this goal, building terrorist infrastructures in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and even on Israel’s doorstep in the West Bank. For Israel, the conflict is existential. Iran seeks its destruction, and Oct. 7 showed the lengths that Tehran will go to in order to achieve this end.
For Israel, the rules of the game have changed. Last April, Iran launched rockets and drones at Israel, marking the first time that such a barrage was launched from Iranian soil. Previously, Tehran had let its proxies do its dirty work, maintaining the fiction that they were acting independently. After Oct. 7, Iran has become emboldened. For its part, the Biden administration pressured Israel not to respond directly and to “take the win.”
On Oct. 1, the regime once again fired ballistic missiles at the Jewish state — no fewer than 180 from Iran in response to the death of Nasrallah. Iran’s direct attack on Israel is a sign that the war between the two countries is evolving into what will inevitably become an open conflict. The clock is ticking.
The Iranian regime is making steadfast progress in its nuclear weapons program. Experts, including those who are hesitant about supporting more robust Israeli action against Iran, say that time is running out.
The West, to include the Obama and Biden administrations, has counseled patience in dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, opting for negotiations and, frequently, concessions, culminating in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran deal. Prior to Oct. 7, some in Israel may have been willing to give this effort the benefit of the doubt. Post-Oct. 7, Israel is likely right to view Iran’s nuclear weapons program as an even graver existential threat. No chances can be taken. Similarly, Iran is unlikely to toss its nuclear program overboard. The regime wants nuclear weapons — and not only for Israel’s destruction but as leverage for its ruling theocrats to hold on to power.
If Israel won’t allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, and Tehran won’t surrender them, this makes the prospect of an open war between the two not only likely but inevitable. Indeed, with Tehran’s recent salvo, such a conflict is not only taking shape, but it is coming into focus.
Such a war would be cataclysmic. The Islamic Republic is a cause, imbued with a messianic ideology, but it is also a nation state, possessing powers and capabilities beyond those of the terrorist groups it relies on. Yet the regime is more brittle than it lets on.
The Islamic Republic is deeply unpopular with many Iranians, not a few of whom celebrated Nasrallah’s demise with anonymous displays online. Tehran’s economy is overly reliant on oil — a weakness that Israel can exploit. Nor is the regime a conventional military powerhouse. Rather, it has traditionally relied on asymmetric warfare. Like other authoritarian systems, the Iranian government is incapable of meaningful reform. This promotes incompetency and inhibits Tehran’s ability to wage war against a far more dexterous opponent.
Israel, too, will face significant constraints. A military powerhouse with a qualitative edge, Israel is nonetheless a small country of 9 million. Israel has begun to ramp up its defense industrial base, in part to ensure that the nation isn’t reliant on weapons from other countries. But it has a long way to go. The United Nations is sure to condemn Israel. Terrorist cells in both the West Bank and Israel itself are likely to increase attacks.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
It will be a long and bloody slog. And Israel will have to do it alone.
But Oct. 7 showed that the Jewish state doesn’t have a choice.
The writer is a senior research analyst for CAMERA, the 65,000-member, Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis