In less than two weeks, Israel has significantly escalated its military operations by striking targets in Yemen, Lebanon, and Iran, pushing the boundaries of regional confrontations.
Ali Noureddine
This article was translated from Arabic to English
In a span of less than two weeks, Israel carried out three significant and provocative military operations, each falling outside the usual regional constraints observed since the beginning of its war on the Gaza Strip.
These began with a raid on the Yemeni port of Hodeidah, followed by the assassination of Hezbollah commander Fouad Shukr in Beirut’s southern suburb, and culminated in the bombing of a location in Iran where Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’ political bureau, was reportedly present.
These operations have pushed the boundaries of traditional confrontations, each carrying distinct messages and objectives tailored to the specific target and location. However, a common thread unites these actions: they significantly heighten the risk of escalating the ongoing conflicts on these three fronts into a broader, open regional war.
In this context, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be once again engaging in brinkmanship, seeking to achieve new political and security objectives by pushing the region to the edge.
Targeting Hodeidah: Messages and Objectives
The Israeli attack on the port of Hodeidah on July 20, 2024, appeared to be a direct response to a drone launched by the Houthis that reached Tel Aviv. This drone strike was part of the broader “Support Front,” a coalition of Iranian-aligned groups fighting alongside Hamas since the onset of the Gaza Strip conflict.
However, Israel’s response went beyond a simple retaliation. The strike was imbued with exceptional symbolism, both in its military dimensions and its broader political and economic implications. Israel intended this operation to deliver multiple, far-reaching messages, extending well beyond the immediate act of retaliation.
The Israeli strike caused a massive explosion at the port’s oil storage facilities, critical for both exporting crude oil and importing refined fuels for consumption. This was not just an attack on infrastructure; it was a direct hit on one of the primary financial lifelines of the Houthi government in Sanaa, further threatening the civil administration in Houthi-controlled areas. It’s well known that the port of Hodeidah is the only strategic seaport connecting Houthi-controlled regions to the outside world.
The raid resulted in oil tanks burning for more than a day. The Ministry of Health in Sanaa reported six deaths and 83 injuries as an initial toll of what the Houthi group called an “unprecedented” attack. Disturbing scenes of the massive fire engulfing the port quickly circulated, amplifying the terror that Israel sought to instill through this escalatory move.
These scenes were, in themselves, part of the intimidation Israel sought to project through this escalatory move, serving as both a message and a form of psychological warfare. This was exactly what Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant alluded to when he remarked, immediately after the operation, that the fire “can be seen across the Middle East.”
Unlike in Syria and Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen lack a clear separation between state institutions and non-state armed groups. In Houthi-controlled areas, the armed group exerts direct control over government agencies, leading to a strong political identification between the two. Notably, the “Sanaa government” is not recognized internationally as a legitimate authority.
Within this context, the Israeli operation carries another significant message: For the first time, Israel has targeted vital Yemeni infrastructure. This strike signals that Israel is prepared to target essential resources in Houthi-controlled areas in response to the group’s operations. This new equation places tremendous pressure on Yemenis already suffering from displacement and the threat of famine.
Finally, the method of the attack was itself a message. Israel conducted the strike using air raids, with fighter jets traveling over 1,900 kilometers round trip to reach their targets. This demonstrated Israel’s capability to execute similar strikes on Iranian oil export facilities, which are geographically closer to Israel than the port of Hodeidah.
Crossing the Red Lines in the Southern Suburbs
Tensions escalated on the Lebanese front on the evening of July 27, 2024, when a projectile of unknown origin struck a playground in the village of Majdal Shams in the occupied Syrian Golan, killing 12 Syrian Arab children and injuring 30 others.
Hezbollah swiftly denied responsibility for the incident. Following this denial, many military analysts suggested that the explosion might have been caused by interceptor missiles from the Israeli army’s Iron Dome system, which can occasionally fall to the ground when they miss their aerial targets. A similar incident occurred days later in the city of Nahariya, inside Israel.
There was no clear indication that Hezbollah had any interest in targeting civilian facilities in an occupied Arab village, especially one relatively far from the military sites it has been targeting in the Golan Heights.
Moreover, since the beginning of the war, Hezbollah had not engaged in any attacks on vital, inhabited civilian facilities, such as a children’s playground, even in Israeli-populated areas. Additionally, the victims were not Israelis, as claimed by the Israeli army spokesman, but members of the Golan Druze community, which has traditionally opposed the occupation and rejected Israeli citizenship and sovereignty.
Nevertheless, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seized the opportunity to use the event as a pretext for escalation, treating the incident as an attack on Israeli citizens by Hezbollah.
In doing so, Netanyahu ignored the fact that the families of the Golan victims themselves objected to his and his ministers’ presence in the village, as they did not want the incident to be portrayed as an infringement on “Israeli sovereignty,” as the Israeli government had been framing it. This suggested that Netanyahu was actively seeking an excuse, regardless of its nature, to justify an escalation against Hezbollah.
In this context, the assassination of Hezbollah leader Fouad Shukr followed, carried out through an airstrike on the southern suburb of Beirut as a supposed response to the Majdal Shams incident. This was not the first time Israel had targeted Beirut’s southern suburb, a Hezbollah stronghold. A similar strike in January 2024 had led to the assassination of Hamas leader Saleh al-Arouri, although Israel publicly claimed at the time that it did not target Hezbollah or its leaders within the suburb.
However, this new raid marked a significant escalation, crossing previously established red lines by targeting one of Hezbollah’s most important military leaders in an area far from the traditional front lines in southern Lebanon. Due to the densely populated nature of the area, the raid resulted in seven civilian deaths and more than 80 injuries.
With this action, Israel appeared to be testing a new tactic in its confrontation with Hezbollah, potentially paving the way for future strikes against the group’s military leaders in any region of Lebanon, including the southern suburbs.
As a result, and as Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah stated following the operation, the group felt compelled to respond outside the scope of its daily operations in southern Lebanon, aiming to prevent Israel from establishing this new pattern of engagement.
The Major Escalation in Tehran
The most significant escalation occurred the day after Shukr’s killing with the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’ political bureau, in the heart of Tehran, at a guest house designated for political visitors. While the Israeli government did not publicly claim responsibility for the assassination, it also did not issue a definitive denial. A week later, multiple media outlets, including The Washington Post, reported that the Israeli government had informed the U.S. administration that it was responsible for the operation.
This operation carried multiple implications and messages. Israel deliberately targeted Haniyeh on Iranian soil, using a short-range missile fired by a team positioned near the guest house. This act was not only a political insult to the Iranian regime but also a direct violation of Iran’s national security and sovereignty.
There is even evidence suggesting that Israel intended the operation to also target Iran’s newly elected reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian, who has been advocating for deeper negotiations with the West and a revival of the nuclear agreement with the United States. This indicates that the target was not just Haniyeh but also the Iranian government’s more conciliatory approach, which aligns with Netanyahu’s longstanding opposition to the nuclear deal, an agreement that was ultimately abandoned by former U.S. President Donald Trump.
The assassination of Haniyeh, a key Palestinian political figure, further underscored the operation’s broader objectives. The attack led to the killing of Hamas’ chief negotiator, who consistently represented the movement’s political face, especially in contrast to the military leaders based in the Gaza Strip.
This act dealt a direct blow to the ongoing negotiations pertaining to the truce, and the exchange of prisoners and hostages. It also marked a setback for the movement’s prior efforts to project an open leadership with international and diplomatic relations abroad.
Yahya Sinwar, the architect of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation and a Hamas official in Gaza, succeeded Haniyeh following his death. This transition was widely seen as a shift toward a more hardline stance within Hamas, an expected outcome following the killing of its chief negotiator. Netanyahu’s actions, therefore, seemed calculated to complicate the situation further, pushing all involved parties toward greater intransigence.
Netanyahu’s Goals and Response Options
It is evident that Netanyahu had distinct objectives and messages with each operation. However, a central goal seems to emerge: escalating tensions on all three fronts simultaneously.
By striking Iran in such a provocative manner, alongside targeting the southern suburbs of Beirut and the port of Hodeidah, Israel is applying direct pressure to draw the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp into the regional conflict. This would, in turn, involve Israel’s Western allies, particularly the United States, in this dangerous escalation, much like what occurred when Iran responded to the attack on its consulate in Damascus.
For Netanyahu, expanding the scope of the confrontation in this way is aimed at undermining the notion of keeping Tehran and its direct interests neutral in the ongoing war. He seeks to eliminate the pattern of limiting the conflict to Israel and the Iranian-backed armed groups.
By dragging Iran into a broader escalation, Netanyahu can directly implicate Tehran in its support for allies in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iraq. This could bring Iranian interests into direct conflict with the American military backing Israel enjoys, potentially allowing Netanyahu to secure better terms in any future settlement.
In response to Netanyahu’s ambitions, Iran is working on a diplomatic and political strategy by engaging in communication and negotiation with Arab and Islamic countries allied with the United States in the region. The clear objective is to prepare a calculated response that holds Israel accountable for the cost of Haniyeh’s assassination in Tehran while avoiding a full-scale regional war with the United States.
This approach may thwart Netanyahu’s goal of igniting conflicts on three fronts simultaneously.
Additionally, Iran and its allies in Lebanon and Yemen have left many possibilities and options open, maintaining an air of ambiguity.
It remains unclear whether the “axis” will respond on all three fronts simultaneously or with separate strikes from each front. It is also uncertain whether the response will be a single concentrated strike or a series of attacks designed to gradually deplete Israel’s defensive capabilities.
As we await further developments, heightened alertness remains the prevailing state on Israel’s part.