Understanding Netanyahu’s playbook of escalation for political gain

When Mossad assassinated Hamas’ political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, it followed a familiar pattern of action from the Israeli government to engage in deliberate full-scale provocations with the role of soliciting a response. Comparatively, back in April, “Israel” also bombed an Iranian diplomatic compound in Syria, an illegal act under international law, and assassinated a Hezbollah senior commander in Lebanon’s capital Beirut. The goal, of course, was to force Iran and Hezbollah into a corner compelling them to respond against “Israel”. 

Why? This is the political playbook of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. For the purposes of his own domestic political gain and survival, the Prime Minister deliberately aggravates conflict to force his opponents to retaliate, whereby he subsequently frames his country to be the victim of aggression, which receives the backing of Western politicians and media. In other words, he deliberately incites and provokes conflict in order to stay in power, and therefore, he himself is the biggest source of instability and war in the region, as he is allowed to act with impunity.

First, Benjamin Netanyahu is domestically unpopular, even hated. His coalition relies on the support of the most hardline Zionist ultranationalists in order to remain in power, and therefore catering to their demands. Many moderates in the population despise him. In order to sustain his position, he subsequently takes a hard line on the oppression of Palestinians, utilizing a playbook of deliberately escalating tensions to create insecurity.This instability is then used to further his agenda regarding the occupation and settlement expansion on legally recognized Palestinian territories.

Coupled with this, Netanyahu also recognizes that because of the war circumstances prevailing in Gaza, making peace and ending the struggle through compromise would mark the end of his political career. Therefore, his only political solution, given his domestic circumstances, is to continue escalating the war to justify maintaining this status quo. This approach allows him to press on with his goals of completely occupying the Gaza Strip, incorporating it into “Israel”, and accelerating settlement building in the West Bank simultaneously. Only a perpetual sense of insecurity and an aversion to peace, which would mark the end of his political career, allow this to continue.

So what’s his solution? To deliberately escalate the struggle with Hezbollah and Iran accordingly. To do this, “Israel” engages in large provocations, including the assassination of prominent figures to compel retaliation. When such responses occur, Netanyahu pushes for further escalation. 

He does this precisely because he knows that whatever regional conflict “Israel” finds itself in, the United States and the West are subsequently compelled to support it. Amid any retaliation, they also frame the other party – whether Iran or Hezbollah – as the “aggressor”. This approach serves the dual purpose of undermining and silencing the critics of “Israel” in these countries.

For example, when Iran responded to an attack and assassination of their diplomatic consulate – which is a violation of international law – Tehran was subsequently framed as “the aggressor”. This narrative allowed “Israel” to secure aid through Congress, forced Biden to back them, and also led to a broader Western narrative portraying Iran as collaborating with China and Russia as part of an “anti-Western axis”. When considered in this context, “Israel’s” actions also serve to enable and justify the hawkish policies of Western Neoconservatives in other areas.

Because of this, Netanyahu has calculated that he can simply “bomb his way” out of trouble in every scenario, politically survive, and deflect criticism. Got a problem? He can just assassinate someone in an audacious manner, create a huge diplomatic and political incident, and turn the situation to his advantage. It should be stated that the Netanyahu government is a significant source of instability in the Middle East precisely because it is permitted to blatantly violate every aspect of international law in pursuit of blatant expansionist and settler-based goals. Who, then, is the real villain here?