Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fears the end of the war. He will be confronted with investigative committees, and questions about accountability and errors. For him, the issue is practically one of life or death, and much more than just clinging to office to avoid accountability. True, the prime minister needs to sign off on any assassination operation targeting a major enemy, and that may lead to security and political repercussions. But it is also true that the military and security establishment is the one making the list of targets and presenting it to the prime minister to make a choice. In all likelihood, the latest assassinations in Beirut and Tehran probably reflect the Israeli security establishment’s desire to restore the power of deterrence that was shaken to the core by the events of Oct. 7. Image has always been important for Israel. It believes that making enemies pay a hefty price for attacks they carry out will discourage any future attacks. Timing has exceptional importance during war. The two assassinations took place soon after Netanyahu stood for the fourth time before the US Congress, where he was met with sustained applause. He mentioned Iran 27 times during his speech and but not once did he talk about a ceasefire. Some would say that Netanyahu concluded from the visit that the US will not abandon its defense of Israel despite criticism by President Joe Biden and his deputy Kamala Harris. Some have said that Netanyahu waited until Hamas was weakened in Gaza before turning to the danger coming from Beirut and Tehran. They believe that the Israeli PM senses that neither Hezbollah nor Tehran want a full-scale war, so has decided to take the war to them in order to embarrass them. Netanyahu has acknowledged that the assassinations leave Iran and Hezbollah with no choice but to retaliate. He then followed this up with the official announcement of the killing of Mohammed Deif, the leader of Hamas’ military wing. Perhaps he wanted the next phase of the war to take on the shape of a confrontation with Iran and its allies, rather than with the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli prime minister wanted the issue of Iran, its role in the region, and its nuclear file to overshadow efforts to reach a ceasefire in Gaza, and a settlement and establishment of a Palestinian state. He may want to revive the possibility of a US-Iranian confrontation should the US take part in thwarting an Iranian attack on Israel, especially if Tehran’s allies seek to target military bases in the region. Some believe that Netanyahu may be pushing the region to the brink of a full-scale conflict in order to put an end to the possibility of an open-ended war of attrition, with the demand that Iran cease fire on all fronts without exception. A ceasefire was never an option for the Israeli PM. Ghassan Charbel The Israeli military and security establishment is aware that Hezbollah’s rockets and drones can reach any location in Israel. The same can be said of Iran and its rockets and drones. In spite of this, Netanyahu chose to confront the two parties with the possibility of a full-scale war. Hezbollah cannot refrain from retaliating after the assassination of senior military commander Fouad Shukr in its stronghold in Beirut’s southern suburbs. Iran also cannot refrain from responding to the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. The Israeli establishment is acting as though it wants to shift the war from a confrontation with Hamas leader Yehya Al-Sinwar and his agenda to a confrontation with the agenda of the Iranian supreme leader. That is why Netanyahu made a point of declaring on Saturday: “We are waging a multi-front war against Iran and its proxies. We will strike with force every one of its arms.” After 10 months, Israel decided to view Oct. 7 as if it were the beginning of a coordinated and open war of attrition that is worth stopping with the gamble of taking the region to the edge of a full-scale war. Netanyahu’s behavior in recent days explains his behavior in the past 10 months. A ceasefire was never an option for him, even if it were accompanied by the release of hostages. He believed that dealing Hamas and Gaza powerful blows were strategic goals that were far more important than celebrating the return of hostages. Some believe that he is dreaming of inflicting on Hezbollah the same losses he inflicted on Hamas despite the differences in their capabilities and arenas of confrontation. This also explains why the Biden administration has been incapable of bringing about an Israeli position that will help lead to a ceasefire. The Middle East is anxiously waiting for the retaliation. There is a growing fear that the response will be greater than what the region witnessed in April. Questions are also being asked about the limits of the new confrontation. What role will the pro-Iran Iraqi factions play? What about the Houthis and the Syrian front? Will Netanyahu respond to the Iranian strike by taking the battle to Lebanon? The Middle East has been on edge for decades. However, the new images are unprecedented, and the summer of assassinations and exchange of blows is growing hotter. What are the limits of Israel’s influence in the region? What are the limits of Iran’s? Can the US accept the change in the “rules of engagement” between Iran and Israel in order to prevent the region from slipping into a full-scale war? It is the terrible Middle East where governments are at a loss, armies are confused, and factions and US bases are on alert. Ghassan Charbel is editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. X: @GhasanCharbel This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.