By Nicholas Kristof / The New York Times
One of the great risks for the world in the latter half of this year is a wider war in the Middle East involving Iran, Lebanon and Israel. That possibility has just become more likely.
None of the parties wants such a war. But each feels obliged to respond to strikes by the other in a way that ratchets up conflict and risks miscalculation and a cycle of escalation.
Today’s crisis results from what appear to be the assassinations just hours apart of Fuad Shukr, a senior member of the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, and Ismail Haniyeh, a top Hamas leader who was visiting Iran. Israel claimed responsibility for killing Shukr, although his death was not confirmed, and Israeli agents were widely presumed to be responsible for the killing of Haniyeh.
For all the danger in the coming days and weeks, there is an offramp. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel could use the double assassinations to proclaim victory and then agree to a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip. Such a deal, assuming it is still achievable, would end the slaughter in Gaza, bring some hostages home and offer a path to de-escalate the conflict in Israel’s north with Hezbollah, allowing Israelis to return to their homes near the Lebanon border.
“The best way to bring the temperature down everywhere is through the cease-fire in Gaza,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, and he’s exactly right.
But first, prepare for a Lebanese and an Iranian response to the assassinations.
Some Israelis are celebrating the killing of Haniyeh, and it’s certainly preferable to target leaders of Hamas rather than to level entire civilian neighborhoods in Gaza. But I doubt that killing Haniyeh does anything for Israel’s security. He had a reputation for being a bit more open to deals than other Hamas leaders, and he may be replaced by someone like Khaled Mashal, who approved of the Oct. 7 terrorist attack. Israel had already tried to assassinate Mashal in 1997.
Israel feels that it has to reestablish deterrence after the Oct. 7 attacks, and Iran likewise feels it must reestablish deterrence when it suffers an assassination on its soil. The upshot is that some counter-strike on Israel by Iran or its proxies is likely soon. If we’re lucky, it won’t cause many casualties and perhaps negotiations on a cease-fire can resume; if a school or other civilian site happens to be hit, then we may see more escalation and find ourselves not on a path to a cease-fire but to a wider war.
Such a war would be devastating, far more so than the Oct. 7 attack. Hezbollah is well armed and barrages of its rockets could cause countless casualties in Israel, while Israel could in turn devastate Lebanon.
Iran, along with the Houthis in Yemen, while farther away, could add to the strikes on Israel. There could well be disruptions to oil production and to the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, raising global oil prices significantly. That would probably hurt Kamala Harris’ electoral prospects while helping President Vladimir Putin of Russia.
So let’s hope Netanyahu seizes the opportunity to declare victory and at long last fully embraces a cease-fire. But, sadly, I wouldn’t bet on it. Brace yourself.
Contact Nicholas Kristof at Facebook.com/Kristof, X.com/NickKristof or by mail at The New York Times, 620 Eighth Ave., New York, NY 10018. c.2024. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
