Moments after Israel and its allies shot down a fleet of Iranian missiles and drones this weekend, many began to wonder what the latest exchange between Israel and Iran would mean for the war in the Gaza Strip.
The Iranian attack was in retaliation for what was widely believed to be an Israeli strike this month on an embassy building in Damascus that killed seven Iranian officials, including three top commanders of Iran’s armed forces. But it happened in the context of the war in Gaza, where Israel is fighting Hamas, a militant group funded and armed by Iran.
Israeli military analysts were divided on whether a more direct confrontation with Iran would change the war in Gaza, now in its sixth month. The next benchmark in this war could depend on whether Israel decides to pursue Hamas in the southern city of Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians have fled the humanitarian crisis.
Some analysts have argued that the implications for Gaza will depend on whether Israel responds with a major counterattack against Iran. Others argued that Israel’s military campaign in the Gaza Strip would not be affected.
Shlomo Brom, a retired brigadier general and former director of the Israeli military’s strategic planning division, said that if Israel responded with substantial force to the Iranian attack, it could incite a multi-front war that would force the Israeli leadership to turn its attention away from Gauze.
In the event of a significant regional fire, General Brom said, Israel may choose to delay its plans to invade Rafah, which Israeli officials describe as Hamas’s last stronghold.
“It is not comfortable for us to have simultaneous high-intensity wars in multiple theaters,” General Brohm added.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pledged to send ground forces to Rafah, despite international pressure to withdraw the operation. On Sunday, an Israeli official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the Iranian attack would have no effect on the army’s plan to invade Rafah.
A large-scale direct confrontation with Iran could potentially bring the war in Gaza to an end, General Brohm said. But to end the war in such a way would require a broader ceasefire involving many parties, including Israel, Iran and the Iranian-backed militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah.
“There is an idea that in order to resolve a crisis, the situation must first get worse,” he said, explaining that an escalation followed by a comprehensive ceasefire with Iran could prompt that country to pressure its regional proxies to stop to fight with Israel.
While members of Israel’s war cabinet did not issue an official statement after Sunday’s meeting, a separate Israeli official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the talks, said the country would respond to the Iranian attack — although there was considerable uncertainty as to when and how.
Other military experts, however, dismissed the link between the Iranian attack and the war in Gaza.
“There is absolutely no connection,” said Amos Gilead, a retired general who served in Israel’s military intelligence service.
General Gilead said Israel’s military has enough resources to fight Iran and continue waging war against Hamas in Gaza.
Other analysts made a similar point, arguing that the resources needed to fight Iran were different from those needed in Gaza. Israel needs fighter jets and air defense systems to counter Iran, they said. Instead, they added, the military requires mostly ground troops, drones and attack helicopters to fight Hamas in Gaza.
“There is no real tension between these two things,” said Giora Eiland, a retired general and former head of Israel’s National Security Council.
However, General Eiland said the success of the coalition in repelling the Iranian attack, which included the United States, Britain and Jordan, could inspire Israel to use the momentum to overcome its declining position internationally, ending the war in Gaza.
Although the United States, Israel’s closest ally, has widely supported Israel’s decision to wage war on Gaza, it has increasingly signaled its displeasure at the mounting death toll and warned of a major ground assault on Rafah. The support the United States gave Israel on Sunday for downing Iranian drones and missiles could give it more leverage over its Israeli counterparts.
While General Eiland said such an outcome could help Israel develop goodwill in the international community and help reach a solution to end the war in Gaza and skirmishes with Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militia in Lebanon , it was doubtful that Mr. Netanyahu would run such a path.
“He says he wants to achieve ‘total victory’ in Gaza and capture Rafah, a process that could take two or three months,” he said, referring to the prime minister. “It’s clear that Netanyahu has a different mindset and priorities.”
Aaron Boxerman contributed to the report.
