Crossing the red lines and the possibility of a comprehensive war?

After the Israeli forces crossed the red lines and rules of engagement adopted since October 8, by bombing the port of Hodeidah in Yemen, assassinating Fouad Shukr, the military official of Hezbollah, in the southern suburb, Hezbollah’s stronghold, and assassinating Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas movement, in Tehran; the war has entered a new phase that could lead to a comprehensive war. If it starts, no one knows when it will end, and what its results will be?

Will the new phase pave the way for the outbreak of a world war or not, or for a new escalation in the level of military operations only (new rules of engagement) that stands on the brink of a comprehensive war without entering into it; and this is the most likely scenario because Washington and Tehran do not want it, and Israel cannot open it without an American green light because it will be defeated in it if it is not part of an international coalition led by the United States of America?

The war may continue on the brink of all-out war for a period until the warring parties mature enough to stop the war, or return to mutual deterrence according to the previous rules of engagement, or this is the weakest scenario, the escalation may be playing with fire and a risk to the point of gambling by Netanyahu aimed at paving the way to stop the war on terms he hopes will be closer to the Israeli position, starting with an agreement on an exchange deal and a truce in Gaza, leading to a permanent and sustainable cessation of the war.

A full-scale war is unlikely because Washington is in the election campaign period, and the US president does not want a war to be added to the war in Ukraine, which raises oil prices and inflation and has uncertain results. It could be long, which reduces Kamala Harris’s chances of winning the upcoming presidential elections, and because it gives China an entry point to increase its role in the region.

It is also unlikely because Tehran does not want to fight the occupying state, supported by an international coalition led by the United States, before it obtains something that achieves a kind of balance of power, including nuclear weapons, at a time when America, despite the increasing decline in its role in the region and the world, is still the most powerful military state in the world and has the greatest influence, and the opposite alliance, the Chinese-Russian-Iranian, has not matured and crystallized, despite taking tangible steps in this direction.

This means that Tehran does not want a comprehensive war in which it would be exposed to the possibility of losing what it has achieved in the past decades, but it is ready to fight it if it is imposed on it, and that it does not want to appear weak and lacking deterrence for fear of a comprehensive war, so it will strike a strong blow under the umbrella of a comprehensive war, and does not accept coexistence with the new rules of engagement that the Netanyahu government wants to impose, where it strikes wherever it wants and however it wants, without a strong response in the opposite direction and equal in magnitude; which strikes Iran’s prestige, sovereignty and honor and spreads discord and disintegration within the axis of resistance.

What suits Tehran and its allies is to stop the war of extermination in Gaza, or else continue the war of attrition within the old rules of engagement that do not suit Israel, which is accustomed to a lightning war and a quick decision and keeping the battlefield far from its home front, as the war of attrition makes it unable to bear it for a long time to come in light of the internal and external pressures and disputes over the priority of completing the exchange deal or not, or continuing the war even at the expense of the Israeli hostages and prisoners.

War at a turning point 

The war is now at a critical turning point. Either Iran and its allies will suffice with a strong response, but one that does not push matters towards a comprehensive war. This is a delicate matter and subject to miscalculations, because any response that is not strong enough to suit the Israeli aggression and escalation will whet the appetite of the occupying state to unilaterally establish new rules. Or if the response is strong and is met with a strong Israeli response, and so on, which threatens that matters will then slide towards a comprehensive war, or America will convince Israel not to respond to the response, i.e. to suffice with a response from Iran and its allies on a tit-for-tat basis?

The dilemma is that the crazy Israeli escalation indicates that the Netanyahu government is not willing to reach a swap deal, not for fear that ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich will withdraw and the government will fall, but because this war is an existential war, over Israel's status, role and future. Therefore, the escalation aims primarily to restore Israel's deterrent power, which has fallen resoundingly since October 7 until now, and if it absorbs the strong response from its enemies and does not respond, this will make Israel appear weak.

Washington's position appears complicated. It wants a swap deal, but it does not want to pressure the Israeli government. It wants its protégé (Israel) to emerge victorious, or at least undefeated. Therefore, it supported the operations in Yemen and the southern suburb, and claimed that it did not know about the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, which the Netanyahu government did not adopt, in order to spread discord among the ranks of the axis of resistance and not give legitimacy to the Iranian response.

In this context, we consider the great efforts made by Washington to persuade Tehran to be satisfied with a symbolic response.

An ideological existential war to resolve the conflict with the Palestinian people 

The above makes it clear that the stubborn Israeli position that is pushing matters to escalate is not only due to Netanyahu’s keenness to survive politically and avoid facing investigation committees and early elections, if the war stops, but also due to the fact that the far-right government sees itself as waging an existential ideological war aimed at resolving the historical conflict with the Palestinian people. It is a war for regional hegemony, as is evident in the Biden administration’s focus on integrating Israel into the region, and that its results and the lack of a clear victory in it will severely affect Israel’s existence, status, future role, and who dominates the region.

Netanyahu knows that despite the disagreements, disputes and fierce competition with the opposition, there is a majority that supports the war and wants Israel to emerge victorious from it. The disagreement is essentially about concluding the deal now and resuming the war afterwards or postponing it until victory is achieved through the surrender of the resistance, even if that leads to the deaths of the prisoners. Therefore, the demonstrations and internal and external pressures have not exceeded a certain ceiling that can be coexisted with and circumvented, if they do not increase or a new variable appears that allows the black duck scenario to be realized.

Netanyahu encourages the continuation of the war and intransigence. There is a near-unanimous Israeli support for the escalation he ordered, especially in Beirut and Tehran. This was evident in the support of 69% of Israelis - according to an opinion poll - for the escalation even if it negatively affected the exchange deal.

The response must be strong and painful. 

What happened should recalculate the calculations on the basis that the Netanyahu government wants the war to continue and escalate, despite the risk of a comprehensive war, as it is betting that Tehran and its allies do not want a comprehensive war, which makes it important for the response from the axis of resistance to be strong and painful, with the Palestinians setting a central goal for the war, based primarily on the Beijing Declaration, which is to end the occupation and embody independence, where work is a priority to stop the war of extermination, exchange prisoners, withdrawal, relief and reconstruction as a stage and step in this direction.

Only in this context can we open up to reaching a deal that includes stopping the response from the axis of resistance in exchange for commitment to the conditions of the resistance in full (stopping the war, withdrawal, prisoner exchange, relief and reconstruction), provided that a clear Israeli position is taken in this regard, in addition to adhering to the necessity of launching a political process through an international conference with full powers and ongoing, whose goal is to implement international law and UN resolutions, not to negotiate them; because stopping the war of extermination must be given absolute priority, as the primary goal of the Israeli war is to exterminate the people and make the Gaza Strip more of an uninhabitable area, and subsequently push the people to emigrate.

What is happening in the West Bank also requires all attention. The valiant resistance must not obscure the fact that the extreme right-wing government is moving forward with gradual nibbling and creeping annexation that will later lead to displacement as well. It is not expected that the extreme right-wing government will accept a settlement based on non-response in exchange for stopping the war based on the resistance’s conditions. However, responding to this proposal, if it is presented, will contribute to weakening the advocates of war and will show that the resistance is keen to stop the bloodshed.

Regional war is not in the interest of the Palestinian cause 

Here it is necessary to point out the dangers of the war turning into a comprehensive regional war, as it could give the government of annexation, genocide and displacement a golden opportunity to continue the war of genocide and displacement, taking advantage of the world’s preoccupation with the war, to implement the annexation of areas classified as (C), or the settlement blocs, and to gather the population in densely populated enclaves and displace the largest number of them.
It is not in the interest of the Palestinian cause and the Palestinian people, nor in the interest of the axis of resistance, for a comprehensive war to break out in light of Arab deterioration and humiliation; that is, without the existence of an Arab project that defends Arab rights and interests, at the heart of which is the Palestinian cause, and in light of the relative superiority of the colonial camp.

Whoever bases his calculations on the fact that the occupying state is heading towards rapid demise, should be patient. Despite all the internal and external elements of weakness in the Israeli entity that have now appeared as never before and are subject to further exacerbation, and have given it its true size, and shown that it is capable of defeat, Israel is a nuclear state and is still strong, and most importantly, it is an organic part and extension of a colonial project that will not allow its demise as simply as some portray it, as its demise will most likely be accompanied by the completion of the collapse of the new world order and the birth of the new world order.

Formation of a unified Palestinian delegation to negotiate 

To help thwart the aggression’s goals, and in the context of building on the “Beijing Declaration” as part of its implementation and as a practical model for it, a Palestinian national delegation can be formed that includes everyone on the basis of a national struggle program, especially representatives of the resistance factions that are waging the war, in order to negotiate on behalf of all Palestinians (similar to what happened after the 2014 aggression), and it establishes a supportive Arab, regional and international position that enables blocking the path of all hostile plans prepared, or being prepared, for the next day.

It is not in the interest of the Palestinian cause and the Palestinian people, nor in the interest of the axis of resistance, for a comprehensive war to break out in light of Arab deterioration and humiliation; that is, without the existence of an Arab project that defends Arab rights and interests, at the heart of which is the Palestinian cause, and in light of the relative superiority of the colonial camp.