Tehran’s Azadi tower from below.
Political commentators have speculated about Binyamin Netanyahu’s timing in launching a major attack on Iran on 13 June, following Israel’s de facto declaration of war on 1 April 2024, when it bombed Iran’s embassy in Damascus. Some have argued that one of his goals was to undermine the ongoing negotiations between Iran and the US regarding Iran’s nuclear program. A further question remains as to why President Trump let the attack happen.
There can be little doubt that Netanyahu still hopes he can drag the US into his war. This has been his objective ever since he convinced Trump to scrap the JCPOA in 2018. Trump, who obliged and therefore bears some responsibility for the outbreak of deadly hostilities, has attempted to use the attacks on Iran to gain leverage in the negotiations by insisting that Iran should conclude a new deal before ‘nothing is left’. He now demands Iran’s ‘unconditional surrender’.
If the anonymous Israeli official quoted by the Times of Israel on 13 June is to be believed, Trump never intended to hold a sixth round of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. The official claims that Trump and Netanyahu plotted to spread misinformation that would lead the Iranians to believe that no attack would occur before further diplomatic efforts were made. Thus, on 12 June, a day before the military assault began, Trump expressed concern that an attack could ‘blow up’ his efforts to finalise a deal with Iran and that he ‘didn’t want them [Israelis] going in’. Trump’s active participation in creating a space of make-believe suggests he was involved in preparing the assault. The strategy was successful and had tragic consequences for an unprepared Iranian leadership on 13 June. The Iranians will have concluded that Trump has acted in bad faith: it came as no surprise that they decided they were not going to sign up to a Versailles-style disarmament, pulling out of talks scheduled in Oman on 15 June.
Why did Netanyahu strike that night? A war further afield deflects attention from Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza, which led to an indictment of two of its leaders (including the prime minister) by the ICC. On top of this, Israel’s relentless military campaign in Gaza, and the looming wholesale starvation there, have finally triggered a diplomatic backlash in Europe. Israel’s compliance with the law of armed conflict as well as trade arrangements with European countries are being scrutinised. Britain, one of Israel’s closest allies, which provides it with arms and intelligence for its war in Gaza, has taken the unprecedented step of sanctioning far-right Israeli ministers for ‘inciting violence’. Several European states — Spain, Norway, Ireland and Slovenia — have recently recognised Palestinian statehood. This recognition has been dismissed by Israeli officials as insignificant and pure fantasy, but in the context of joint initiatives between European and Arab states, it might well cause serious concern.
This fresh thinking among the Europeans is occurring at a time of shifting regional dynamics, such as the détente between Saudi Arabia and Iran and the US-initiated negotiations of an alternative nuclear deal with Iran (now defunct) and lifting of sanctions on Syria’s new regime, despite Israeli opposition. Synchronised with a revitalised Arab Peace Initiative (API), this new approach could provide the moment for a comprehensive regional peace agreement involving the EU and Britain, and possibly the US. The API, Saudi Arabia’s brainchild and arguably its most important foreign policy initiative, which has been approved by 22 Arab states, offers diplomatic and trade relations with Israel in return for the latter’s withdrawal from the occupied territories.
Although Iran has not publicly embraced the API, some Gulf states have interpreted its lack of opposition at the Arab Islamic summit in Riyadh in 2023 as tacit endorsement. Iran has also made it known that it would accept an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians as long as the latter support it. The US might come to appreciate that its interests in the Middle East are better served by creating a multipolar political order and ending Israel’s forever wars, rather than providing its ally with the means to continue its occupation of Arab land and realise its hegemonic ambitions. After concluding highly lucrative deals during his recent visit to the Middle East, Trump may lend an ear to his Gulf state partners who, despite seeing Iran as a threat for many decades, have condemned Israel’s assault and denounced its violation of international law.
Israel, which is utterly averse to the creation of a Palestinian state in the territories it has occupied since 1967, is also likely to have been perturbed by the announcement of a UN-sponsored conference on Palestinian statehood in New York scheduled to begin on 17 June. Setting a precedent, the conference was to be co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France, its desired outcome an agreement on steps towards the recognition of a Palestinian state. Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar warned the UK, France and other nations that such a step would be met decisively with retaliation, such as extending Israeli sovereignty to West Bank settlements and parts of the Jordan Valley.
Of course, for now, the Israeli government can feel assured of the US veto against the creation of an independent Palestine at the UN. However, these vital initiatives — the New York conference, sanctions imposed on Israeli officials, the partial recognition of a Palestinian state, the ICC indictment and pending ICJ Genocide Convention judgment and Iran’s potential compliance with the API — would have put pressure on it to contemplate negotiating peace by giving those who identify as Palestinian Arabs their rights in their own state or in a confederation with Israel (as suggested by former justice minister Yossi Beilin in an Al-Jazeera interview on 13 June). Netanyahu, determined to realise his dream of a greater Israel by any means, has always ruled out both options. He ordered his forces to carry out extensive attacks on Iran a few days before the planned conference, which would have sought to explore ways to implement international law in parts of historic Palestine which have endured the longest military occupation in modern history.
The conference has been postponed indefinitely.