- hindi news
- Opinion
- Thomas L. Friedman’s Column Israel’s Regime Has Fallen Into The Trap Laid By Iran
10 days ago
- copy link
Thomas L. Friedman, three-time Pulitzer Prize winner and columnist for ‘The New York Times’
‘What would you have done then?’ Since October 7, the Israeli government has repeatedly asked this question to the world. What would you do if Hamas terrorists crossed your western border and killed and abducted hundreds of Israelis, and the next day their Hezbollah allies fired rockets at your northern border – and Iran supported it? This is an important question and one that Israel’s critics often avoid. But he’s not the only one who avoids it.
This Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, wants you and I and every Israeli and all of Israel’s friends—even the enemies—to believe that there was always only one right answer to this question: Gaza. Attacking and eliminating Hamas, without being bothered by civilian casualties in the process, then repeating the same by striking Hezbollah in Lebanon – and devising an exit strategy from either front of the war. Don’t waste time.
It is a trap, and the Biden administration was not firm enough to prevent Israel from falling into it. Now the situation has become serious. The Jewish nation of Israel is in grave danger. And it faces this threat from both Iran as well as its current Israeli regime. I have never had any illusions about the main causes of this war.
It is a revelation of a grand Iranian strategy to gradually destroy the Jewish state, weaken America’s Arab allies, and reduce American influence in the region. Another subplot is to prevent Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and use proxies.
The Iran-Hamas strategy was to create a ring of fire around Israel, using militants from Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraq’s Shia militias, and weapons smuggled through Jordan into the West Bank.
From the perspective of Iran’s own interests, this is an excellent strategy: no matter how many Palestinians and Lebanese people have to be sacrificed to harm Israel, not a single Iranian life is at risk.
Iran is not going to hesitate in risking the lives of every Lebanese, Palestinian, Syrian and Yemeni to destroy Israel. With this, it will also be able to divert the world’s attention from the atrocities being committed by the Iranian regime against its own people and its control over Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Syria.
The problem for Israelis and the Jewish people is that the Netanyahu government refused to conduct the war in a way that could be expected to succeed—because that strategy was contrary to the prime minister’s political interests.
Israel faces existential threats from outside, and its Prime Minister and his allies are prioritizing their own political and ideological interests. They have recently resumed judicial coup attempts to crush Israel’s Supreme Court – while Israel is waging a war for its survival and its hostages are still somewhere in Gaza.
Israel needed four things: 1. Time, because this ring of fire could not be put out overnight; 2. Resources, especially from the US; 3. Arab and European allies, because Israel could not fight alone; and 4. Legitimacy for its actions.
Biden’s team had presented a roadmap to Israel. This included convincing America’s Arab allies to reform the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank with new, credible leadership and then convincing Israel to begin negotiations with the Palestinian Authority leadership for a two-state solution.
This would have isolated Hamas and opened the way to pressure it into a ceasefire, under which Israel would pull out of Gaza in exchange for all hostages. This would have eliminated Hezbollah’s excuse for attacking Israel. This would have opened the way for Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel, which would have been a major blow to Iran. But none of this could be done.
From the perspective of Iran’s own interests, this was an excellent strategy: no matter how many Palestinians and Lebanese people had to be sacrificed to harm Israel, not a single Iranian life would be at risk.
(from The New York Times)