President Biden Meets with President Netanyahu. Credit: Getty Images

In October 2023, the longstanding conflict between Israel and the Sunni Islamist group Hamas saw a dramatic escalation when Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel from the Gaza Strip. Described as an “intelligence failure for the ages” (Beaumont, 2023), the assault was characterised by a multifaceted approach, including a barrage of thousands of rockets aimed at key targets in Israel, as well as a land invasion in Southern Israel, most notably targeting the Nova Music Festival. In total, over 1200 civilians were killed, with an additional 250 hostages being taken back to Gaza as collateral. The attack was completely unprecedented and marked significant failings within the Israeli Military and defence forces. Deep-rooted historical grievances and territorial disputes have acted as key drivers of the conflict, with ongoing hostilities dating back to the 1948 Arab Israeli War and the subsequent occupation of Palestinian territories.

The immediate aftermath of the attack was chaotic; the Israeli Military had an initially slow-response and, in some areas under attack, it took hours to arrive. The international community reacted swiftly, condemning the violence, and calling for restraint on both sides. Despite this, Israel now faced a Security Dilemma; within this context, states and non-state actors, such as Hamas are seen as rational actors within an ‘anarchic’ international system, which must prioritise their own security above all else, often taking extreme actions to assert their authority. In response to the attack, Israel initiated an intense military retaliation aimed at neutralising Hamas’s operational capabilities. The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) conducted extensive aerial bombardments targeting critical Hamas infrastructure, including command and control centres, weapons depots, and the extensive network of tunnels utilised for smuggling and military operations. The IDF also launched ground operations within Gaza, seeking to dismantle Hamas’s military apparatus and reduce its capacity for future assaults. The scale of Israel’s response has resulted in significant casualties, exacerbating the already precarious humanitarian situation in the region. This retaliatory campaign has drawn significant international scrutiny and criticism, as global leaders urged an immediate cessation of hostilities and a return to diplomatic negotiations.

Following the Israeli retaliation, the Lebanese group, Hezbollah, launched a series of rockets at Israel. This marked the first involvement of an external adversary within the immediate aftermath. Demonstrative of its own security dilemma, Hezbollah’s involvement can be attributed to its strategic alliance with Hamas and its ideological commitment to resisting Israeli actions in the region. The escalation presented as an opportunity for Hezbollah to reaffirm its role as a key player in the Palestinian issue, thereby enhancing its legitimacy among its constituents. Additionally, Hezbollah aimed to deter Israeli aggression by signalling its readiness to engage militarily, thereby reinforcing its position within the broader geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.

Hezbollah is not the only adversary to Israel to become involved in the war following the Hamas attack; as Iran has played a significant, yet indirect role. After initial support for the Hamas attack, Iran soon denied any involvement in its planning or execution. Iran has continued its long-standing support for Hamas and other Palestinian factions by providing financial assistance, weapons, and political backing. More significantly, in April 2024, Iran launched an unprecedented assault on Israel, in collaboration with Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthis. Over 300 rockets were launched towards Golan Heights in retaliation for an Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, killing several high-ranking Iranian military officials. Owing to their own security dilemma, Iran deems these attacks as a necessary response to Israel’s actions, including the assassination of Iranian commanders. Iran’s actions were also aimed at deterring Israel and its allies, in particular the United States, despite the risk of a broader regional conflict. On October 1 2024, Iran launched a further significant attack on Israel, marking one of the largest direct military engagements between the two players. Approximately 180 ballistic missiles were fired towards various targets in Israel, and were seen as a retaliation to Israel’s killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Iran claimed the attack was an act of self-defence and, whilst many missiles were intercepted, some did strike targets, causing limited damage to military bases and civilian structures. Two weeks after Iran launched its attack, Israel launched a series of targeted strikes on military structures, air defence systems, and radar systems in order to degrade Iran’s capabilities. Israel’s choice of non-civilian targets is demonstrative of their security dilemma, and the need to achieve their gains in a ‘bloodless’ way (Jervis, 1978) by avoiding civilian deaths, whilst also asserting authority. Following the international criticism for the severe actions in Gaza, Israel chose to avoid civilian casualties in Iran, which could have potentially exacerbated a regional war. Israel’s response was notably restrained, adhering to United States recommendations for a “targeted and proportional” retaliation. The strikes did result in limited casualties, with four Iranian soldiers and one civilian being confirmed dead. This signalled Israel’s desire to defend itself, whilst also demonstrating that there was no desire for a wider regional war.

Iran’s relationship with the United States, the main ally of Israel, has been one of deep-rooted animosity, characterised by severed diplomatic ties, sanctions and mutual accusations of acts of destabilisation for decades now. Central to this tension is Iran’s nuclear programme, support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and the US policies aimed at preventing these actions. Iran’s support for Hamas directly opposes the US backing of Israel, which has escalated tensions. One key issue for Iran now is the re-election of President Donald Trump, which could also be somehow problematic for Israel. Trump’s history with Iran was marked by a policy of “maximum pressure” in which he pulled the US out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal in 2018, reimposed economic sanctions, and aimed to economically isolate Iran to force it to negotiate for more favourable terms for the US, as well as Israel. Trump’s first term also saw high-profile military action, including the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Force, in 2020, which significantly heightened tensions. With Trump’s re-election, it is likely that this would now lead to an exacerbation of the situation, as his policies may embolden Israel to take aggressive actions against Iran, unlike Biden Administration that encouraged restraint. If this were to happen, there is potential for a wider regional war as Iran is likely to respond aggressively to such provocations, escalating the situation beyond the issue of Israel and Palestine. However, Trump’s unpredictable nature may also lead to a push for quick conflict resolution, as is evident in Biden’s recent push for a ceasefire in the final week of his time in office.

In the past week, President Joe Biden held a call with Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss the ongoing conflict, emphasising the immediate need for a ceasefire. Biden reiterated the terms of an Israeli proposal from May 2024 (Singh, 2024), which he sees as a pathway for ending hostilities, releasing the remaining hostages, and providing humanitarian relief to Gaza. His push for a ceasefire is motivated by several factors: to mitigate humanitarian relief, international pressure for peace, and domestic political considerations.

With Trump’s inauguration approaching, Biden is under pressure to show progress in resolving or managing international crises, as well as the need to align with the interests of US-Israel relations. Biden’s push for a ceasefire potentially puts Donald Trump in a complex position; he is historically a staunch supporter of Israel, often criticising policies that he perceives as weakening this alliance. If a ceasefire is achieved under Biden, Trump may argue that the deal is weak or not in Israel’s best interests, leveraging this as political gain as he demonstrates himself as a stronger ally to Israel. Donald Trump has made it clear that he does not want a ceasefire under Biden Administration, a stance that is largely political; he aims to use the continuation of the conflict as a point of criticism against Biden, portraying the administration as weak and ineffective. Trump has explicitly stated that he wants the war to be over by or shortly after his inauguration, suggesting he believes he could achieve what Biden could not, thereby leveraging his political gain. His comments indicate that any ceasefire under Biden would be a lost opportunity to demonstrate his own capabilities in foreign policy.

As Trump’s second term is due to begin, Israel’s actions could be influenced by several anticipated policy directions and past behaviours. With Trump’s known pro-Israel stance, particularly his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, Israel may feel more confident in taking decisive military actions against threats, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy (Nephew, 2024) towards Iran could lead Israel to anticipate strong US support if it were to strike at Iranian proxies or even Iran itself, potentially escalating regional conflicts. Trump’s administration also previously green-lighted settlement activity in the West Bank which could encourage Israel to further expand settlements. However, whilst Trump’s support may embolden Israel, it could also lead to greater international isolation or criticism if actions are perceived as too aggressive or in violation of international law. Israel would need to balance this with the potential for US protection at international bodies such as the UN.

Overall, Israel’s actions under Trump’s second term would likely be shaped by the expectation of strong US backing, potentially leading to more assertive military and settlement policies, while also navigating the complexities of international relations and the strategic landscape of the Middle East.

Sources

Beaumont, P. (2023). Hamas’s murderous attack will be remembered as Israeli intelligence failure for the ages. The Guardian (Online Article) Accessed at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/07/hamas-stealth-attack-will-be-remembered-as-israeli-intelligence-failure-for-the-ages (January 2025)

Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma. World Politics, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 167-214.

Nephew, R. (2024). Before Maximum pressure, Trump Needs an Iran Strategy. The Washington Institute (Online Article) Accessed at: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/maximum-pressure-trump-needs-iran-strategy (January 2025).

Singh, K. (2024). What’s in the new Israel ceasefire proposal Biden announced? Reuters (Online Article) Accessed at: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/whats-new-israel-ceasefire-proposal-biden-announced-2024-05-31/ (January 2025).

Disclaimer. The views and opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of MEPEI. Any content provided by our author is of her opinion and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or anyone or anything.

About the author

Ms. Amelia Hepner THEODOROU

Amelia Hepner THEODOROU is a Regional Security Analyst based in the United Kingdom. Having graduated from the University of Liverpool with a BA in International Politics and Policy, she is currently completing an MA in International Relations and Security. Her interests focus on counter-terrorism strategy and the geopolitical dynamics of the MENA region, with a particular emphasis on intelligence sharing between the United States and United Kingdom.