[81alum]

An all-out Hezbollah attack, probably with West Bank uprisings, could be very dangerous if timed when the IDF was bogged down in Gaza.  But I would have to ask for what strategic purpose?  Iran is likely to get what it wants even if the war does not expand.

Iran may believe it can compel Israel to seek terms with Hamas. It would be a big gamble, because Hezbollah may be permanently crippled if it doesn't work, but if Israel has to negotiate, it will make Iran much stronger politically with everybody in the middle east. It could also be that Iran hopes it can force the US to intervene directly. This is a much more dangerous course of action (for many reasons), but if it happens it will definitely cause a major breakdown in US political influence with any Muslim countries in the middle east. It could put the US in a "damned if you do,  damned if you don't" situation. Our domestic political situation is such that we really, really don't want to face such a choice.

Of course, my colleagues in I.R. think strategically and look for the reasons behind seemingly irrational actions.  I supposed there is a chance that the only reason for any of this is just hatred, revenge, and mayhem.  If so, events are even harder to predict.  But it seems awfully well coordinated and resourced.

It does indeed. Additionally, I don't believe the benefit/cost ratio to Iran justifies destroying their proxy in Gaza to prevent an Israel/Saudi agreement. Given the Saudi's absolute monarchy, they don't have to keep their word on anything. Their "alliance" with Israel will be one of convenience, not conviction. I can't imagine Iran is playing for those relatively low stakes. Of course, as you point out, it doesn't have to be "rational". Hamas may have just done it because they could with no real strategic aim.

Goose, the Iran connection is indeed controversial in this case.  A second colleague I spoke with today minimized it on the basis of the timelines involved.  He pointed out that this operation must have been planned for far longer than news of the potential breakthrough in Saudi/Israeli relations.

On the other hand, Dennis Ross, one of the most knowledgeable diplomats on this region (he negotiated the Oslo accords) had this to say:

I think the main reason this is happening now is because of the prospect of the U.S.-Saudi-Israeli deal. Hamas understands this is a brobdingnagian transformative event, and they are trying to create a circumstance where it will be difficult for Saudi Arabia to do it right.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2...k-00120498

He does not explain it sufficiently in that article, but he has also been giving cable interviews which you can probably find on the internet.  His argument is that if Saudi Arabia normalizes relations with Israel, and the nation with the two holiest sites in Islam makes peace with Israel, it will change the conflict that Hamas is stoking from an existential one to a national one--one in which compromise is possible and one in which fanaticism is lessened.  Hamas certainly does not desire that.

I'm not sure what to believe and have never been happier that I pursued a different branch of my discipline!  But while the scholarly community is somewhat divided so far, the theory that this attack--its timing, ferocity, and barbarity--serves the strategic interest of Iran is not far fetched, especially when you consider that the strategic interests of Hamas may be the same. 

Ross also blames Hamas for doing something similar to blow up (literally) the peace process in 1996 when Shimon Peres was implementing Oslo after the assassination of Rabin.  Hamas bombed two buses in Jerusalem, killing 45, and this successfully undermined the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and ended the momentum of Oslo.  Prior to the bombings most Israelis supported moving ahead; after the bombings this was reversed.  And 1996 proved to be the last truly hopeful year for the peace process. 

https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/s...833234.pdf

So Hamas has shown in the past that it times its terrorism strategically to undermine diplomatic events that it thinks are moving against its interests, and it is reasonable to think that this act also fits the pattern.  Of course, this is likely not all there is to the story.

[81alum]

An all-out Hezbollah attack, probably with West Bank uprisings, could be very dangerous if timed when the IDF was bogged down in Gaza.  But I would have to ask for what strategic purpose?  Iran is likely to get what it wants even if the war does not expand.

Iran may believe it can compel Israel to seek terms with Hamas. It would be a big gamble, because Hezbollah may be permanently crippled if it doesn't work, but if Israel has to negotiate, it will make Iran much stronger politically with everybody in the middle east. It could also be that Iran hopes it can force the US to intervene directly. This is a much more dangerous course of action (for many reasons), but if it happens it will definitely cause a major breakdown in US political influence with any Muslim countries in the middle east. It could put the US in a "damned if you do,  damned if you don't" situation. Our domestic political situation is such that we really, really don't want to face such a choice.

Of course, my colleagues in I.R. think strategically and look for the reasons behind seemingly irrational actions.  I supposed there is a chance that the only reason for any of this is just hatred, revenge, and mayhem.  If so, events are even harder to predict.  But it seems awfully well coordinated and resourced.

It does indeed. Additionally, I don't believe the benefit/cost ratio to Iran justifies destroying their proxy in Gaza to prevent an Israel/Saudi agreement. Given the Saudi's absolute monarchy, they don't have to keep their word on anything. Their "alliance" with Israel will be one of convenience, not conviction. I can't imagine Iran is playing for those relatively low stakes. Of course, as you point out, it doesn't have to be "rational". Hamas may have just done it because they could with no real strategic aim.

Goose, the Iran connection is indeed controversial in this case.  A second colleague I spoke with today minimized it on the basis of the timelines involved.  He pointed out that this operation must have been planned for far longer than news of the potential breakthrough in Saudi/Israeli relations.

On the other hand, Dennis Ross, one of the most knowledgeable diplomats on this region (he negotiated the Oslo accords) had this to say:

I think the main reason this is happening now is because of the prospect of the U.S.-Saudi-Israeli deal. Hamas understands this is a brobdingnagian transformative event, and they are trying to create a circumstance where it will be difficult for Saudi Arabia to do it right.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2...k-00120498

He does not explain it sufficiently in that article, but he has also been giving cable interviews which you can probably find on the internet.  His argument is that if Saudi Arabia normalizes relations with Israel, and the nation with the two holiest sites in Islam makes peace with Israel, it will change the conflict that Hamas is stoking from an existential one to a national one--one in which compromise is possible and one in which fanaticism is lessened.  Hamas certainly does not desire that.

I'm not sure what to believe and have never been happier that I pursued a different branch of my discipline!  But while the scholarly community is somewhat divided so far, the theory that this attack--its timing, ferocity, and barbarity--serves the strategic interest of Iran is not far fetched, especially when you consider that the strategic interests of Hamas may be the same. 

Ross also blames Hamas for doing something similar to blow up (literally) the peace process in 1996 when Shimon Peres was implementing Oslo after the assassination of Rabin.  Hamas bombed two buses in Jerusalem, killing 45, and this successfully undermined the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and ended the momentum of Oslo.  Prior to the bombings most Israelis supported moving ahead; after the bombings this was reversed.  And 1996 proved to be the last truly hopeful year for the peace process. 

https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/s...833234.pdf

So Hamas has shown in the past that it times its terrorism strategically to undermine diplomatic events that it thinks are moving against its interests, and it is reasonable to think that this act also fits the pattern.  Of course, this is likely not all there is to the story.