The High Risk of Newly Appointed Warriors

If you wanted to write a script about a volatile situation, you could start with this logline: two enemies navigate under great uncertainty. They both have new leaders who must prove to their people and the world that they have what it takes to lead a country in a time of crisis. One of them sees an opportunity because of global developments that make it easy for him to be more aggressive. The other one is afraid that the enemy is taking advantage of the situation, and becomes nervous. Then, one of them initiates an attack. The result is somewhat more dire than expected. The other turns to the international community for help. They tell him “do what you have to do.”

Episode one. The end.

Do you see why this is a most dangerous time for these countries? We are talking about Iran, with a newly-elected president, and Israel, with a newly-elected Prime Minister. And it is the Biden administration that wants to keep its cool in order to avoid ruining delicate negotiations to renew the so-called nuclear deal with Iran. Following an Iranian attack on a ship off the coast of Oman, the U.S. State Secretary acknowledged that the attack “follows a pattern of attacks and other belligerent behavior.” To this pattern, the current U.S. response is business as usual. Iran attacks—as usual. The U.S. seeks a diplomatic agreement—as usual. Israel grumbles and threatens—as usual. “We are working to rally the world, but at the same time we also know to act alone,” Israel’s PM Naftali Bennett said.

It is often the newly-elected who make the most aggressive moves against an enemy, as not to be seen as weak. A Financial Times story captured the mood in Tehran with a vivid headline: “Iran’s new hardline president defiant in face of sanctions and security concerns.” And if Iran’s president is defiant, Bennett must reciprocate by also being defiant. A decade and a half ago, when Ehud Olmert became the Prime Minister, he felt that he must respond decisively to a Hezbollah attack in the north. The result was the second Lebanon war. Would he have acted similarly had he not been new on the job? That’s hard to tell. And yet, we can’t discount the suspicion that a new leader, needing to prove his worth, might be more aggressive than an experienced old lion.

It is often the newly-elected who make the most aggressive moves against an enemy, as not to be seen as weak.

On Monday, the Brits, who weren’t pleased with Iran’s behavior, summoned the Iranian ambassador for a brief talk about what the British government called the “unlawful attack” on a ship. On Tuesday afternoon, reports about more missing ships began circulating. A “potential hijack” was unfolding off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, Britain’s maritime trade agency reported. The details were murky, but some observers were quick to assume that this is Iran’s deed. Would Tehran go as far as provoking a hard-nosed government? Only time will tell. But it’s not impossible that Iran senses an opportunity to send a “back off” message to the west by upping the ante.

Surely, Boris Johnson has better things to do than open a front against Iran.

And as for Joe Biden, he already proved that his heart is somewhere else.

Does Bennett feel the great burden of having to stand alone in a dangerous and consequential battlefield? Being Israel’s Prime Minister is a difficult job. It is difficult not because of Covid, or the nonsense of coalition politics, or having to plan a budget. It is difficult because Israel has dangerous enemies out there, who constantly search for an opportunity to attack us.

Shmuel Rosner is an Israeli columnist, editor, and researcher. He is the editor of the research and data-journalism website themadad.com, and is the political editor of the Jewish Journal.