Published by AstroAwani, image by AstroAwani.
In EMIR Research article, “Netanyahu’s “messianic vision” – be careful what you wish for” (October 3, 2024), it’s stated that Israel’s preparation for an “offensive” multi-front war by “pre-empting” a ground invasion may just lead to the opposite.
That is, it’d only make the dreaded multi-front war via a ground invasion, i.e., that symmetrical war, a reality for Israel.
What Israel wants by escalating the conflict in the hope of luring Iran into a full-scale confrontation is a regional war (“Israel is preparing for a regional war – time to abolish the UNSC veto”, EMIR Research, October 3, 2024).
But the Zionist entity doesn’t want and can’t afford a symmetrical war.
Unless the US is prepared to send ground troops like during Operation Desert Shield (1990-1991) and Operation Desert Storm (1991) positioned in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.
To do that, Netanyahu needs to escalate and provoke the situation into triggering a very strong Iranian response – asymmetrical (directly and indirectly) to be sure – which would then compel Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states into a military alliance on the side of Israel.
In short, Netanyahu hopes to turn Iran into another Iraq – as a precursor to regime change.
To an observer, it’s incredible that Netanyahu would simply want to replay previous events in the Middle East as if things were “black and white” and “mechanical” (recalling Hegel’s deduction of the thesis, antithesis and synthesis dialectical movement in history).
Notwithstanding, Netanyahu is simply following his “script” already in place.
Again, Netanyahu’s ideological obsession with redrawing the map of the Middle East simply ignores the complexities and dynamics of the region. The same applies to his neo-conservative friends in the US.
As mentioned in EMIR Research article, “Netanyahu’s ‘messianic vision’ – be careful what you wish for” (October 16, 2024), the situation of the Kurds in Syria, to give an example, is different from their compatriots in southeast Turkey, northern Iraq and western Iran.
There’re now efforts underway to get the Kurds and Arab tribes to sit on the negotiating table with Damascus for “national unity talks” (“Arab tribes, separatist Kurds from US-occupied Syria in Damascus for ‘national unity talks’”, The Cradle, October 15, 2024).
Misinterpretation and distortion of the biblical injunction regarding the “Promised Land” by Zionists have blinded both Netanyahu and the radical religious Zionists to the (underlying) realities of the region.
The promise (“first”) and the command (“second”) to take possession of the “Promised Land” were recorded in the Pentateuch – which includes the first book, i.e., Genesis – as well as Joshua.
Firstly, the promise in Genesis predates (in time and space)the command to conquer and, by inclusion, the binding of ethno-religious identity to geography or demarcated land.
This is confirmed and evident by the universal character of the promise in Genesis 15 and 22 (descendants as numerous as the stars; blessings to all nations).
In short, Father Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Zionist.
And to possess by way of inheritance and conquest are two different things.
Secondly, the command to Joshua – the conquest – was specific only to Canaan (as demonstrated by the extent of the conquest/campaign). The remaining areas to be conquered were still within Canaan.
Thirdly, the “Promised Land” was to be divided up accordingly and allocated to the twelve tribes of Israel.
Fourthly, successive tribal territories and kingdoms of Israel never expanded as far as the “Greater Israel” projection.
This is why the “Greater Israel” project is a perversion of the Torah.
Hence, it’s no surprise many Israelis (both secularists and moderate religious Zionists) are contented with having a “safe haven” in the form of the State of Israel and nothing more.
The same previous article also mentioned the rise of far-right and ultra-Orthodox Zionism as the latter seek to impose its vision and ideals (including the “Greater Israel” project) on the rest of society.
A microcosm of this can already been “gleaned” from tensions between the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) and settlers (“In recent years, the settler movement discovered a winning strategy: Attack the Israeli military”, Forward, March 28, 2024). The hitherto commander of the IDF in the West Bank had taken to condemning the far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich (a settler himself) and rising settler violence.
Major General Yehuda Fuks made clear that “… terrifying the Palestinians living alongside Jews was ‘a dangerous mistake’ and that the actions of violent Jewish settlers threatened Israel’s security” (“Israeli General Denounces Jewish Settler Violence in West Bank”, July 9, 2024, The New York Times).
In fact, there’re already clashes between the IDF and the settlers (see the very important article by Mairav Zonszein in “Israel’s Hidden War: The Battle Between Ideologues and Generals That Will Define the Country’s Future”, Foreign Affairs, October 15, 2024).
Zonszein’s article begins by highlighting a letter from Shin Bet (Israel’s domestic security service) head Ronen Bar to Netanyahu and the cabinet in which he warned that Jewish terrorism (his own words) in the West Bank challenges the country’s national security and are a “large stain on Judaism”.
The settler militias had gone from “evading … to attacking the security forces” and “… [now enjoying] legitimacy from certain officials in the establishment”.
There were already clashes during the dis-engagement policy and, by extension, the removal and dismantlement of settlements from Gaza under Ariel Sharon in 2005.
Only this time it won’t be “isolated” anymore.
Intensified international pressure for the two-state solution (as embodied by the United Nations General Assembly/UNGA Tenth Emergency Special Session’s Resolution on September 18, 2024 – whereby Israel is required to withdraw from the Occupied Palestinian Territory/West Bank within one year) will deepen divisions in Israeli society and heighten the conditions for a civil war.
Back to the external dimension.
A very brief survey of additional possible scenarios of a multi-front – symmetrical – war is in order (following on from the previous EMIR Research article as mentioned).
Israel is preparing for a multi-front war because they “project” that their genocide against Gaza will be “prolonged”. Thus, sooner or later some Middle Eastern nations will be forced to act – driven by internal and external pressures.
In prolonging the aggression against Gaza, Netanyahu is, in effect, holding the entire civilian population hostage (“penultimate military objective”) just to extract unconditional and total surrender from Hamas (“ultimate military objective”).
Surrender unconditionally or we’ll continue to pound Gaza relentlessly.
Not only that, we’ll starve Gazans into “submission”. And hence, the “Generals’ Plan” (see, “Israel’s forever wars in the Middle East will pave the way for its demise”, David Hearst, Middle East Eye, October 16, 2024).
Moving to Iran, Netanyahu’s dream of a regime change overlooks the country’s resilience. Recall that the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) didn’t result in the Ayatollah’s collapse.
Despite suffering the most casualties as arising from the human wave attacks, among other setbacks, it was Iraq that was affected “the most”.
Hence, Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait and, simultaneously, turning against the West and its regional allies in 1990.
There’re no signs that the Islamic Republic of Iran will collapse like a pack of cards from “exhaustion” if only the masses are given the chance to overthrow their leaders.
The older generation would recall their experience living under the shadows of the Shah’s feared secret police, SAVAK (“Torture still scars Iranians 40 years after revolution, AP News, February 6, 2019).
Israel thinks that the only thing standing in the way of regime change is the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps). Striking the IRGC a massive blow would alter the situation/condition.
Should the IRGC take part in a future asymmetrical campaign such as in the Golan Heights, this would allow Israel to deal with the first blow.
For now, Israel is denying space and launching pad or beachhead/bridgehead for a (symmetrical) ground invasion of northern Israel. The Zionist entity is also displaying its firepower and engaging in a form of demonstration as a preview meant to shake the (symmetrical warfare) enemy’s morale.
Destruction of infrastructure is intended to prefigure the “annihilation” of the enemy. As it is, the IDF is employing tactical nuclear weapons in southern Lebanon (and not only in Gaza – “Israel Using Small Nuclear Weapons On Gaza & Lebanon? Tragic Details of Shocking Investigation”, Oneindia News, September 7, 2024, YouTube).
Southern Lebanon could be turned into a mini-Stalingrad – which aims to slow down the enemy’s advance and where both sides are bogged down in urban warfare in a kind of temporary stalemate until help/relief arrives.
This gives Israel the time to maneuver within its interior lines to send for reinforcements. It also gives time for the US to send over additional assistance.
Just as critically, Israel’s scorched earth tactics is meant to cut off or rather “pre-empt” the enemy’s (“over-extended”) supply lines.
For now, the immediate result of the IDF’s encroachment is the creation of a buffer zone or strategic depth.
The presence of UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) gets in the way.
However, this also means a loss of strategic initiative for Israel.
Precisely because Israel is being driven by self-contradictory impulses/instincts:
- fighting asymmetrical warfare to pre-empt a symmetrical war; and simultaneously
- escalating (and provoking) – via the goal of Hezbollah’s “annihilation” (“destruction of terrorist infrastructure”) that could result in that symmetrical war.
Building on from this, Turkiye joining forces with Syria and a moratorium with the PKK (Kurdish insurgents) isn’t impossible.
Turkiye’s role in providing for a seaborne assault and invasion, i.e. with the coastal cities as target areas, is highly critical.
Should Turkiye become a part of and coordinate with the rest of the Axis of Resistance (non-state and state actors), simultaneous/synchronised drone and missile barrages against Israel (decapitation strategy on steroids) as preceding a seaborne assault would be devastating.
Overall, the combined weight of Iranian, Syrian, Turkish and Axis of Resistance forces would make it difficult for Israel to resist and defend against encroachment into its territory.
This includes the Golan Heights.
Hezbollah supported by the IRGC (alongside Iraqi Hezbollah fighters) together with the Syrian armed forces can exert tremendous pressure on the IDF garrison there by attacking from multiple (sub-)fronts/angles. The southern Lebanon front (with Hezbollah enjoying the ground advantage – including via its tunneling system) would serve as a holding tactic to tie down and distract/detract IDF forces from reinforcing the Golan Heights.
Houthi Ansarullah and volunteers from Yemen and elsewhere could be transported via Iranian vessels (military, civilian) under another country’s flag to head towards the Gulf of Aqaba.
It’s here that the bridgehead/launching pad for a southern offensive by a brigade of Houthi fighters (perhaps some 4000-5000 strong) landing at and capturing Eliat port city would take place.
From there, there’d be a penetration – blitzkrieg – drive towards Gaza followed by a second wave.
These forces would then link up with Turkish forces in Gaza.
In one fell swoop, “half” of the Negev desert could already be in the hands of the Axis of Resistance.
This would constitute the “first” phase of a multi-front (symmetrical) war.
In the “second” phase, we could/might see Egypt and Jordan pressured by their populace to join in the war. For Egypt, it’s projected that in the first phase, Egyptian forces would already be massed along the border with Gaza in a wait-and-see and observe posture and also to (initially) prevent volunteers from crossing over.
As mentioned in EMIR Research article, “The Geopolitical Consequences for the US” (October 14, 2024), “[t]he longer Israel continues its brutal military operations …, the more it risks overextending its capabilities and losing its deterrent edge”.
Again, the greater or more prolonged the escalation, the higher the possibility of a multi-front symmetrical war.
Perhaps, one of the ways to force Israel to step back is by expelling the Zionist entity from the UN (“Enough is enough – expel Israel from the UN”, EMIR Research, June 27, 2024).
Jason Loh Seong Wei is Head of Social, Law & Human Rights at EMIR Research, an independent think tank focussed on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research.
