I think that this interpretation of Israel’s recent attacks on Iranian forces in Syria by Reva Goujon at RealClearWorld is about right:
Israel knows that in this age of emerging great power conflict, it cannot take for granted the United States’ long-term commitment to the Middle East. On the one hand, the U.S. administration has been vocal about trying to reduce its overseas commitments, demanding that regional players step up to the plate so it can remove its own forces. The last thing the White House wants is to get pulled into a confrontation with a major power such as Russia over a minor power such as Syria. On the other hand, the White House under President Donald Trump is bent on recasting Iran as an international pariah and is evidently willing to risk confrontation with Tehran, even if doing so ends up prolonging the United States’ presence in the region.
Israel’s objective is to steer the United States toward the latter course. If Israel is to seize its opportunity to weaken Iran, which also entails taking on more risk, then it needs to do so in a way that keeps the United States engaged.
The $50 trillion question is whether domestic political considerations will overwhelm common sense and foreign policy interests and propel us into a disastrous war in the Middle East. I’m betting on domestic political considerations.
“Israel’s objective is to steer the United States toward the latter course.”
Yeah. Bibi’s position has always been, “Let’s you and him fight.” See, Iraq 2002, Iran 2012: Compare and Contrast Netanyahu’s Speeches.
I think the chances of a war with Iran are currently very low and not likely to substantially increase in the near term.
Additionally, Iran and Israel, for all their hostility, have a very limited capability to actually wage war on each other.
Here’s the scenario. Israel keeps attacking Iranian bases, ratcheting up the pressure. Iran responds. There’s considerable pressure in the U. S. to defend the Israelis from Iranian aggression.
Iran and Israel are both capable regional powers – but their conventional forces have little ability to project military power beyond their littoral.
So the most likely scenario is another proxy war in Lebanon or tit-for-tat in Syria. In either case, Israel is in a strong position where it would not need active US involvement. Hizbollah and/or Iranian forces in Syria simply don’t have the ability to seriously hurt Israel. Nothing they can do would require US assistance (except resupplying Israeli munitions from counter-reprisals).
In my scenario the objective of Israel’s attacks would be to provoke a retaliation from the Iranians that would in turn provoke a U. S. response in the form of direct war with Iran. I honestly don’t see what other purpose their attacks on the Iranian bases serve. Bravado? Internal politics?
What does a war with Iran, N. Korea, Russia, or China look like? Does it include taking and holding ground? If so, does the US economy shift into producing munitions, armaments, and equipment? Is there a draft? If not, how does the existing military add a ground invasion to its list of duties?
I will leave aside an air and naval campaign, but there a number of a questions that need to be answered.
None of these countries can operate at a distance outside their borders. The US is the only country with the logistics ability to project power, but that is not unlimited.
“In my scenario the objective of Israel’s attacks would be to provoke a retaliation from the Iranians… ”
Whether or not that is true is debatable, but my point is that the Iranians have very limited means to retaliate – nothing they can reasonably do would present a great enough threat to Israel to cause the US to intervene.
Let’s hope that if the Iranians retaliate by striking an Israeli city which even with their superannuated submarine fleet they can do cooler heads prevail and we don’t react by, say, bombing Tehran.