For years, the accepted assumption was that Israel's central strategy against Iran was to target the "head of the snake." Whether through military strike plans or attempts to influence Iran's stability at home, it appears that Israel's chosen method for confronting the Iranian danger was to hit the mother country directly.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spearheaded this strategy against a battery of contrarian politicians in Israel, and mainly against the tailwind of support that Iran received from the Obama administration. But the more Washington pursued non-interventionist policies, the stronger Iran became. The American withdrawal from Iraq helped the Shiite militias there turn the country into an Iranian puppet. When the US said that it might cut military aid to the Lebanese army, Iran announced it would help instead. Iran's clout in Syria grew in the wake of US non-intervention in the country's civil war. Iran developed close ties with Pakistan, aided the Houthi rebels in Yemen, bolstered relations with Venezuela and forged alliances in Africa.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
The apex of this process was the nuclear deal with the West, which beyond the criticism of its ability to prevent Iran from acquiring an atomic bomb, didn't require Iran to cease its support for terror. Quite the opposite, with the removal of economic sanctions, Tehran received billions of dollars which it then funneled into its nuclear and imperialistic programs.
The wrinkle is that Israel no longer suffices with targeting Iran's entrenchment efforts and exposing its belligerent activities across the globe. It is turning the tables by striking at these proxies tasked with menacing the Jewish state, making them a double-edged sword for the Iranians. In other words, if Iran created them to harm Israel without direct, explicit involvement in their acts of war, then attacking them can cause a crack in the mother country.
The reason is simple: A simultaneous war against these proxies can have a dramatic effect on Iran, no less than an attack on Iran itself. It would obligate Iran to employ military capabilities on several fronts and use vast amounts of money to fund these efforts. We need to remember that Iranian imperialism depends primarily on the funds and resources that Tehran sends to these terrorist forces. Therefore, weakening these Iranian "colonies" can make them a burden on the mother country which, buttressed by significant economic sanctions can destabilize the entire structure.
We can also see this trend in Israel's foreign policy, which keeps a close eye on those places where Iran accumulates influence and tries presenting them with an alternative. It stands to reason, for example, that Israel's diplomatic campaign in Africa is part of its effort to eradicate Iranian influence on the continent. Similarly, Israel recognized the oppositionist regime in Venezuela, and even the "Qatari cash" transferred to Gaza is meant as a type of countermeasure to Iranian control there. The Israeli government isn't just implementing a sophisticated strategy against Iran in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza; it is waging a multi-arena campaign against Iranian imperialism in general.
The attempt to accuse Netanyahu of trying to escalate the security situation ahead of the upcoming election, therefore, overlooks the signs of a far more significant strategic approach emerging in the region.
