Coverage of Israel’s imminent attack on Iran and potential ceasefire scenarios covering all the fronts of the current Middle East war have been dizzyingly confusing.
This has been the most true regarding coverage of Mossad Chief David Barnea, with some reports suggesting in recent days that he or Israel might consider foregoing attacking Iran if it would lead to a comprehensive ceasefire with both Hamas and Hezbollah, including a return of the hostages.
The Jerusalem Post has learned that such reports are wrong and have conflated a variety of complex scenarios in the conflict between Israel and Iran and in the end game between Jerusalem and Hamas and Hezbollah.
First, the Post has learned that there has been no change to Israel’s initial decision to directly and substantially counterattack Iran for Tehran’s October 2 direct nearly 200 ballistic missiles strike on the Jewish state.
There has also been no change to the decision not to strike Iran’s nuclear program, with the Washington Post confirming this story in the context of the latest developments in which the US has given Jerusalem THAAD anti-ballistic missile system batteries as part of a payoff for avoiding attacking the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities.
So far, there are no reports that the Biden administration has offered Israel any guarantees for the future for keeping Iran’s nuclear program “in the box,” either being ready to undertake its own attack or providing Jerusalem with “bunker buster” bombs to strike nuclear facilities deep underground.
Of course, Washington did try to convince Israel to drop the idea of attacking Iran entirely.
There was a push by the Biden administration, the Post understands, that given that Tehran’s ballistic missile strikes on October 2 were ineffective in causing substantial harm (they did cause far more harm than a similar attack in April) and given that this was Tehran’s response to Israel killing off Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, and the IDF’s invasion of southern Lebanon, Israel could choose not to respond further to avoid the risk of regional war.
Also, some US officials may have hoped that a sudden push by Iran on Hezbollah and Hamas to cut a deal, including returning all of the Israeli hostages, might have made it harder for the Jewish state to rock the boat with a big Iran attack.
However, neither Barnea nor other top Israeli officials like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, or IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi ever seriously considered not hitting Iran back hard.
Rather, the Post has learned that the scenario of a comprehensive ceasefire, which some of them are looking at, might develop after Israel strikes Iran and even potentially after both Tehran and Jerusalem engage in a series of strikes and counter-strikes.
Only at that point, once the dust settles, Israel believes that it might be possible to reach a comprehensive ceasefire more along the terms it wants visa vise Hamas and Hezbollah.
The Israeli calculation would be that once the proxies see that their main sponsor, Iran, has itself been hit and, in any case, expended whatever assistance for them that it could have provided, they will be more pragmatic than they are now.
At least for now, especially Hamas, and even to some extent Hezbollah, are hoping a regional war between Israel and Iran weakens and harms Israel so badly that it will sue for ceasefire terms much more to their liking.
In this context, it seems that Netanyahu’s canceling of Gallant’s flight to Washington last week - aside from being about who would get the credit for obtaining gifts from the US in exchange for not attacking Iranian nuclear targets and “only” attacking Iranian military targets – may have been about some tactical differences in negotiations about what support could be received from the US.
It may also have been a bit about timing. Gallant may have been ready to attack Iran earlier, and Netanyahu may have wanted to buy more time, either for his plans for hitting Hamas in northern Gaza, for hitting Hezbollah in Lebanon, or just because he tends to be against rushing any major decisions.
In any case, Israel clearly decided to wait to attack Iran until the US had put the THAAD anti-aircraft system in place within Israel starting from Monday, according to the Pentagon.
Unless the THAAD is a fake out, given that it will take at least a few more days for more THAAD batteries to arrive and for them to be operational, Israel will likely wait at least a few more days.
Although at one point, it seemed Israel might wait until November 5 after election day to attack, under pressure from Biden, it now seems that Jerusalem wants to have the attack play out before election day so it will not be running into the new president-elect, whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump.
Temporary truce between officials may end shortly
What is important then about the leaks about post-Iran ceasefire options is that the temporary truce between Netanyahu-Gallant-Barnea-Halevi and even main opposition figure Benny Gantz will probably end shortly after the attack on Iran.
Sure, it is possible that Sinwar and Hezbollah will finally succumb to Netanyahu’s terms, but it is more likely that they will not, not fully, or only after another extended negotiation.
All of those top Israeli officials listed will likely start to press again for a ceasefire in order to get the hostages back, whereas Netanyahu might choose to go with them finally or might choose to continue to prolong the war, either until he gets better terms from Hamas.
So far, the IDF’s success in Lebanon since mid-September has helped distract the country from the failure to return the hostages and from the ongoing rocket and drone attacks by Hezbollah.
But if, after Israel’s attack on Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah are still dug in, Netanyahu will be at yet another decisive fork in the road.