On the Brink of Explosion: How Do Israelis Read the Escalation and How Do They Push Towards It?

It is not new for Israeli military analysts to warn about the danger of escalation, but what is new is the way this warning is framed, where a genuine note of concern is mixed with a calculated degree of dramatic flair, in a clear attempt to rearrange responsibilities, making it seem as if Israel is an outsider watching, rather than an active party contributing to shaping the course of events.

In many Israeli readings, the Gulf becomes akin to an open stage, and cinematic metaphors are summoned to describe what is happening, as if we are in the midst of an "action movie on the shores of Hormuz." However, this language is not innocent; it reflects a mentality that sees war as an event whose pace can be controlled, or even capitalized upon, as long as it does not directly impact the Israeli home front, and as long as its costs remain distributed in other arenas.

Within this narrative, the scene is condensed into one character: Donald Trump, who is presented as the one with the final decision, uniquely capable of pushing the region to war or returning it to calm. This simplification seems comfortable for Israel because it shifts the center of gravity to Washington and diminishes its presence as a pressing party, despite the fact that its actual behavior suggests otherwise.

In reality, Trump's behavior reveals a clear contradiction between rhetoric and practice; he threatens to destroy Iran while avoiding engagement in a full-scale war, escalating politically and militarily at the same time as he seeks a way out. This contradiction cannot be divorced from the American internal context, where fatigue from wars is rising, and anxiety about their economic repercussions, particularly regarding energy prices, is advancing. Thus, it appears that Trump seeks to achieve a political accomplishment without being dragged into the cost of war, a fragile equation by nature, as it encourages the opposing party to constantly test its limits.

Conversely, Iran does not seem far from this logic, as it exercises a form of calculated escalation that approaches the brink of confrontation without crossing it. The strikes targeting oil interests or maritime passages are not necessarily aimed at igniting a comprehensive war, as much as they aim to establish a deterrent equation and convey precise messages about the ability to cause harm. However, this type of "critical balance" remains fraught with risks, as the accumulation of calculated steps could lead, at any moment, to a loss of control.

In this particular context, Israel appears as a "present absent" in the discourse, but in reality, it is a key actor in pushing to expand the circle of tension. Benjamin Netanyahu does not just support the option of confrontation with Iran, but he also works in parallel to keep the surrounding fronts in a state of low-intensity flare-ups, whether in Lebanon or Gaza.

In Lebanon, a ceasefire cannot actually be considered to be in place, as strikes continue within carefully drawn boundaries, keeping the escalation under control without ending it. This situation does not reflect stability as much as it expresses ongoing management of tension, where the possibility of slipping into a broader confrontation remains at any moment, especially amidst the fragility of the rules of engagement.

Between these two fronts, the boundaries of escalation do not seem to be drawn solely by field considerations, but also by a broader political ceiling imposed by Washington. The pace at which operations move, both in Lebanon and Gaza, is not separate from the calculations of the American administration, which is trying to control the level of confrontation and prevent it from slipping into a comprehensive regional conflict. Thus, the question is not just what Israel wants or how other forces respond, but how willing Donald Trump is to allow these boundaries to be crossed, or to redraw them according to his interests and internal balances.

In Gaza, the situation takes on a clearer character, with indicators accumulating of preparations for a new escalation phase through heightened political and military rhetoric, and a reintroduction of unresolved objectives from previous rounds. In this context, Gaza does not appear merely as a separate battleground, but part of a broader pressure system used within regional calculations, which also applies to the Lebanese front.

In this sense, Israel is not content with merely observing the escalation, but it contributes to shaping its environment by maintaining a persistent state of tension that allows it to maneuver and keeps confrontation options open without bearing the cost of a full-blown explosion. Despite all this escalation, another less visible trajectory in the media continues, represented by the ongoing indirect negotiation channels, which reveal that the region is not necessarily heading towards an inevitable war, but rather is living a state of ongoing bargaining under the pressure of fire. Iran ties any progress to lifting the blockade, while the United States seeks to extract concessions in the nuclear file, while each party uses escalation tools to improve its negotiating conditions.

However, this intertwining between negotiation and escalation creates a situation of extreme fragility, where stability is contingent upon all parties’ ability to precisely control the rhythm, which cannot be guaranteed in light of multiple fronts and overlapping interests. In this regard, the danger does not lie in a clear intention to launch a comprehensive war, but in the nature of the phase itself, where contradictory calculations intersect: an American administration seeking an achievement without cost, Iran practicing brinkmanship, and Israel pushing to expand the scope of confrontation without being its immediate battleground.

In such an environment, wars do not need major decisions as much as they need a small mistake. At that point, the confrontation will not remain confined to the Gulf, and the fronts will not remain separate. Instead, the entire region may turn into an open arena that is difficult to contain or predict its outcomes.