Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu apparently believed that killing Iran’s leader would bring the country to collapse. This is in many way a telling misunderstanding, for these two narcissistic men believe that they themselves are irreplaceable, and equate their demise with the downfall of their respective nations. On the other hand, those of us active in the opposition in our countries know all too well that massive demonstrations and widespread disgruntlement with a regime is not necessarily sufficient to bring about its downfall.

But what should have been clear to all involved is that in Iran, Israel would find a far fiercer opponent than any she has encountered for decades. Israel has become accustomed to fighting terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbullah and the Houthim, not massive, well armed and well-trained armed forces such as Iran’s. With over half a million soldiers and the infrastructure of a country whose population approaches 100 million, Israel cannot expect a swift defeat, or perhaps any defeat at all. Saddam Hussein made a similar error in underestimating Iranian strength, and shortly after the 1979 revolutionary thought the time was ripe for an attack: after eight years, with over a million causalties, he had discovered that the Iranian people and its military were far more formidable than he’d imagined. Moreover, the Iranian regime’s large bureacracy, loyal supporters and wide base make it harder to defeat than a thin veneer of a single dictator; today, after almost 50 years in power, the regime and those that benefit from it are deeply entrenched.

Israel’s outstanding armed forces have been hijacked by Netanyahu and his corrupt band of supporters, who have taken advantage of the former’s idealism and determination to defend their country. The Israeli public has been conned into believing in the necessity for endless war and in the presence of existential threats lurking in every corner. While the IDF have performed brilliantly in the many justifiable strikes on the nation’s enemies, the ongoing battles without goals or planned exit leave Israel’s citizenry in a state of alternating panic and pride. The army’s accomplishments are to be lauded, but the failures and total lack of strategy, limits, or long-term military or political strategy run contrary to the national interest and certainly, to the interests of the populace, who are exhausted after three years of internal and external battling.

Moreover, there is a clear split between the government ministers, war-mongering and devoid of any moral compunctions, and the majority of Israelis, who oppose the current government and ironically bear the brunt of its irresponsible, dangerous, and unethical actions. Two of the coalition partners are Ultra-Orthodox parties whose electorate refuses to serve in the army and who have placed a law legalizing draft evasion on the top of their agenda; the division over service has become the hottest topic on the domestic agenda. Polls have shown that since the 7th of October, Netanyahu’s coalition would be defeated in elections; were elections to be held today, the opposition would garner approximately 70 of the 120 Knesset seats. In fact, even in the elections held three years ago that brought in the current government, the coalition won only 48% of the vote and would not have been victorious were it not for the pecularities of the political system that effectly erased almost 10% of the votes.

But how will this all end? One of three scenarios might force the parties involved to stop and pull out of the war that has now spilled over far beyond Iran.

1. Oil prices and the catastrophic economic repercussions of the war might cause Trump to pull out, thereby leaving Netanyahu isolated and with the brunt of the blame for having initiated the war. Trump, like Netanyahu, knows how to take credit and especially, how to apportion blame; it seems that he will be no less sentimental towards Netanyahu than he has been towards any other of his disposable friends. His proposal to ease sanctions on Russian oil to address the leap  in oil prices shows he is not indifferent to the already clear economic indicators.

2. Trump, who ran on a platform of ending wars, may be even more wildly criticized for his acting in Iran without congressional authorization. If not earlier, the November mid-term elections are expected to create an opposition majority in the legislature; the truly bloody mess has already claimed thousands of lives, disrupted millions, and resulted in the loss of American soldiers. In addition, especially after the media coverage of the gruesome war in Gaza, the American public is sensitive to humanitarian considerations. If another school, place of worship, or other civilian target is hit, public opinion will likely galvanize domestic opposition. The Israeli government has leaned heavily and visibly on Trump’s support and will be hard put to explain insistence on pursuing a war that its chief ally has abandoned.

3. Israeli or another country’s military casualties will become so great that domestic opposition will demand negotiations and a pull-out. In this war, as in many others in which Israel has participated, there is initial sweeping support that sours quickly. Twenty years ago Israel struck Hezbullah in the second Lebanese War. At the outset, there was a wave of unilateral backing; in a short time sentiment turned. Strikes by the air force, based on impressive intelligence, are always popular, and Israel has no shortage of enemies deserving such a strike. However, casualties are painful for Israel and the IDF is still largely a people’s army.

One notably missing and traditionally significant option is the interference of an outside party. In many previous wars the U.S. has interceded and brought about a cease fire, most notably in the Yom Kippur War – but not only. In this case, Trump as the American representative has been exceedingly gung-ho and a principal instigator. Russia thus far has only benefitted, both by the pricing of Russian oil and the deflecting of criticism from the war on Ukraine. China, another superpower, is seen by many to be the main (if not obvious) target of the war, which depends on Iranian oil for 70% of its supplies; its involvement would certainly not be welcome. Both Netanyahu and Trump despise and disregard the stance of the UN on virtually any issue. Thus intervention as an “honest broker”, traditionally the US role, will be hard to find.

The worst result of this war would be a vindicated Iran and a recuperating of its allies. The best would be a humiliating defeat of Netanyahu, whose seemingly endless tenure as prime minister is destroying Israel, its liberal community, and the name of Zionism worldwide. It is a pity that these two seem to go together. The greatest hope for Israel and its democratically-inclined supporters would be a negotiated solution that would leave the Iranian regime largely disarmed (without enriched uranium or ballistic missiles) and on the brink of collapse (it should fall due to internal pressures, not by force) – but with Netanyahu once again exposed for false promises and foolhardy, exaggerated use of power, for which all other Israelis (and its neighbors) repeatedly pay the price. Only then, after Netanyahu is out of office and a cease-fire is in place, will there finally be a chance to address the real, underlying issues prolonging the war and preventing a lasting peace – namely, a withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank and work towards a comprehensive solution that will address Israel’s immediate neighbors, the Palestinians, and advance a two-state solution. As the war in Iran rages on, it veils the current violence and anarchy in the West Bank that today has become one of the greatest threats and egregious crimes in the region. This, too must be stopped.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)