The West's fear of escalation does not help

By Professor Efraim Inbar.

Western attitudes consider the use of force to be uncivilized and anachronistic. Middle Easterners see it as a legitimate option in the toolbox of international actors. In fact, in this part of the world, in many situations, escalation is the best way to end violence.

Governments in numerous world capitals have repeatedly expressed concern about the escalation of the Gaza conflict and Hezbollah's war of attrition against Israel. They fear more violence, more casualties and an expansion in the number of regional participants in the war. US President Joe Biden sent aircraft carriers to the region as a sign of his desire to avoid escalation and repeatedly repeated his famous "Don't do it" warning, with limited success.

Such fears, warnings and numerous calls for moderation are understandable, especially for Western audiences, but they are not very helpful. First, these pronouncements express a genuine reluctance to use force and are seen by most people in the Middle East as weakness, a trait despised in these parts. In contrast to Western attitudes that view the use of force as uncivilized and anachronistic, Middle Easterners view it as a legitimate option in the toolbox of international actors.

Plus, it's popular. Hamas gained enormous popularity among Palestinians for its October 7 attack on Israel. Israelis value successful targeted assassinations, and these are also highly valued by their Arab allies.

In many situations, escalating is probably the best way to end the violence. In fact, Hamas' incursions and atrocities are a direct result of Israel's years-long policy of containment. Instead of escalating and demanding a high price from Hamas to change its strategic calculus; Israel preferred to absorb many rocket attacks and refrained from a strong response that could lead to escalation. This only gave Hamas time to develop its military capabilities and acquire the power to resist a ten-month-old Israeli offensive.

Similarly, Israel's reluctance to take preventive measures in Lebanon allowed Hezbollah to build a formidable missile arsenal. This organization grew to become a monster that since October 8 has carried out, without flinching, a war of attrition against Israel. With Iran's blessing, he managed to empty northern Israel of its inhabitants and force the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to deploy large military formations south of the Lebanese border, necessary to achieve a faster victory in Gaza.

War of attrition is the best outcome for Iran's population-centered strategy and the worst-case scenario for Israel. The continued existence of more than one hundred thousand missiles in the hands of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, after crossing the Rubicon of fighting a long war of attrition, is an intolerable situation for Israel. Only an escalation aimed at eliminating the missile arsenal can put an end to the war of attrition.

In the Lebanese case, the "diplomatic solution" that the Americans and the French are promoting is a mirage. Hezbollah cannot be trusted for long to comply with any agreement that does not serve its purposes, and the UN contingent in southern Lebanon assigned to prevent Hezbollah's invasion towards the Israeli border has demonstrated its impotence.

War against Hezbollah is inevitable; Israel may have to wait for more favorable circumstances to arrive, but they will arrive.

The willingness to escalate and bear additional costs indicates determination to achieve necessary objectives. Victory in war is achieved not only by the greater ability to impose costs on the enemy, but also by the ability to endure pain and suffering.

Therefore, being perceived as someone with a predilection for escalation helps with deterrence. The fear of retaliation has a cooling effect on many minds around the world. This is the reason for the bully's threatening behavior in a difficult neighborhood. Unfortunately, the Middle East is one of those neighborhoods. Deterrence must be maintained over time through the occasional use of force. This is your only lubricant, not words.

Risk aversion is often praised in many international circles and situations. However, moderation at the strategic level is problematic. It could be interpreted as a fatal weakness and could invite aggression. This is the way bullies interpret things, particularly the Middle Eastern variety.

Obviously, each situation requires a separate calculation of opportunities and risks. But Pavlovian advice to exercise restraint and warnings of escalation indicate a lack of understanding of the strategic game played by violent actors in the Middle East. Words such as goodwill, trust and the search for stability have a different meaning in the vocabulary used by radicals in the region. Iran and its proxies want to destabilize it. Everyone wants the United States out of the Middle East and for the regimes of America's allies to fall and be replaced by radical Islamists.

They cannot be persuaded to refrain from plotting against the West and its regional allies. Diplomacy has little value. Westerners who worship the sanctity of life are not fully aware that radical Islamists are willing to make many sacrifices and endure a great deal of pain. Iran has been under economic sanctions of varying intensity for decades with little impact on its policies.

Ultimately, the only effective persuasion is the use of force. This requires a willingness to intensify the fight for freedom and other Western values. It is necessary to defeat the Islamist radicals. The timing of escalation can be debated, but not the course of action.

Source: JISS The Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security