Consequential escalation?
The alleged drone strike aimed at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s residence in Caesarea on October 19 can thus far be called the greatest escalation in the already boiling war. Though there hasn’t been any official claim regarding the attack, Netanyahu has accused that Hezbollah, backed by Iran, was behind the assassination attempt. In response, news reports suggest that Netanyahu-led Israel has already ramped up the attacks against its rivals including Hezbollah while the latter, too, is in retaliatory mood. It will be interesting to note how long Israel can sustain the multi-front wars it has embroiled itself in. It is in war with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, and confrontations with Iran are also on the rise. Hezbollah has long been a formidable force in the region, heavily armed and financed by Iran. It must be noted here that Iran, which has played a central role in backing both Hezbollah and Hamas, seems intent on demonstrating its capability to strike at the heart of Israel through its proxies.
Israel has often employed a policy of overwhelming force in response to threats, and this incident will likely intensify its military actions in Lebanon and Gaza; in fact, it already is. Netanyahu’s firm resolve can be seen in his statement that "anyone who tries to harm Israel’s citizens will pay a heavy price". His actions have shown thus far that his threat cannot be taken lightly. Netanyahu’s resolve for external aggression has been backed by considerable domestic support. At a time when Netanyahu’s political trajectory seemed shaky, the October 7 Hamas attack last year reignited nationalistic sentiments among the masses—giving Netanyahu’s political career a new fillip. The core question is: how long can Israel’s top leadership keep feeding on the heightened public sentiment. Not only is a large section of Israel’s population finding itself disenchanted from the war, on the external front also, its allies including the United States are becoming more vocal against Israeli aggressions.
The involvement of Iran in the conflict has compounded the situation multiple times more. Iran’s role in this growing conflict is central. In recent weeks, Tehran has ramped up its support for its regional allies, particularly after an October 1 missile barrage directed at Israel in response to the killing of top Iranian and Hezbollah leaders. Iran's influence is now being felt across multiple fronts, with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza acting as its proxies. The alignment of these groups, both of which are deeply entrenched in the conflict with Israel, has created a dangerous tripartite alliance. The assassination attempt on Netanyahu could be part of Iran’s broader strategy to keep Israel embroiled in multiple conflicts simultaneously, weakening its defences and creating instability in the region. It won’t be wrong to say that Iran’s backing of Hezbollah and Hamas is not just ideological but tactical.
Everything said and done, the assassination attempt on Netanyahu signals a dangerous shift. Targeting the leadership of a state, particularly a high-profile figure like the Israeli prime minister, risks pushing the conflict beyond proxy wars and into a more direct confrontation between Israel and Iran. The potential for broader regional conflict is now heightened, with the risk that further missteps or provocations could ignite a wider war.
As military operations intensify, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and Lebanon will also worsen. Gaza’s civil defence agency reported that over 400 people have been killed in northern Gaza in the last two weeks alone, and Israeli airstrikes are hitting densely populated areas. The civilian toll has become a grim reality, as Israel tightens its siege on Gaza in an effort to prevent Hamas militants from regrouping. In Lebanon, the situation is similarly dire. Israeli strikes have targeted Hezbollah-controlled areas, and the conflict has displaced over a million people, including around 400,000 children. The sheer scale of the devastation underscores the humanitarian disaster unfolding in these war-torn regions. It is high time this cycle of violence and counterviolence is broken. Under whatsoever pretexts, none of the sides should be endorsed for their violent actions and responses.
