George Friedman
With the situation in northern Israel now escalating, it’s imperative to take stock of the purpose of the Oct. 7 attacks and what it might mean for the future of the conflict. Hamas’ intent that day was not only to kill Israelis but to take Israeli hostages. Strategically, the purpose was unclear. Hamas knew the attacks wouldn’t force Israel to capitulate to its demands or withdraw from positions that shield Israel proper from direct assault, nor was it surprised that Oct. 7 was answered by a bloody counterattack.
The Hamas operation was not intended to damage Israel so much as it was intended to enhance the group’s standing. Hamas would lose troops, but it would gain status in the broader Sunni-Shiite conflict, or so the thinking went. But there were rumors of ulterior motives. Early in the conflict, some believed other actors would reinforce Hamas in its offensive. The only real candidate for that job would have been Hezbollah, which is either aligned with Iran or Tehran’s puppet, depending on your point of view. Iran supports Hamas, but Hamas is Sunni and, therefore, not generally considered the influencer Hezbollah is. Iran is certainly hostile to Israel, but its bigger goal is the disassembly of Sunni hegemony and replacement of it with a Shiite sphere of influence. There was a rumor suggesting Hamas had known Hezbollah would not join in the attack because doing so would jeopardize its own standing. In other words, the purpose of the Oct. 7 attacks was to draw Israeli troops into a fight against a fixed urban force while weakening the Shiites.
No comments:
Post a Comment