Is Netanyahu, a war criminal wanted by the International Criminal Court, dragging Western countries into another war in the region? What are Netanyahu's strategies for prolonging wars in the Middle East? 

Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, incites and prolongs wars in the Middle East to advance his vision of Israeli dominance or to evade accountability for his crimes. Netanyahu's behavior, facing accusations of international war crimes, inciting further conflict to evade accountability can be explained by psychological defense mechanisms, particularly projection, escalation avoidance, and rationalization. According to Freud (1936), projection is an unconscious process by which individuals attribute their unacceptable thoughts or crimes to others, allowing them to shift blame such as accusing opponents or international bodies of bias or aggression (ego and defense mechanisms). This tactic is reinforced in political contexts, as noted by Jervis (1976), who argues that leaders often manipulate perceptions to legitimize their actions. Furthermore, escalation avoidance, the creation of new crises to divert attention, is consistent with Kahneman and Tversky's (1979) prospect theory, which explains how decision-makers under pressure may take extreme risks to avoid losses. Similarly, Browning's (1992) analysis of Nazi officers in Ordinary Men shows how escalating violence can serve as a psychological escape from guilt. Finally, rationalization allows leaders to reframe atrocities as necessary, with destructive acts justified through ideological narratives. Together, these mechanisms illustrate how Netanyahu deflects personal responsibility into larger-scale conflicts, using victimhood or existentialist rhetoric to avoid justice and drag the region into more wars.

In terms of international relations, Europe's silence (not taking serious action to stop it) on Israel's violation of international law is not the first. Europe has failed in clear terms to condemn Israel’s massacres in Gaza or its siege blocking food aid, despite clear violations of international law, hiding behind superficial condemnations. Europe is currently showing no reaction to Israel's violation of Iranian sovereignty and its attacks on nuclear facilities. These events are sufficient to warrant serious action to halt Israeli arrogance. However, Europe and the United States in general have become infiltrated by the Zionist lobby, which directs the policies of these countries using money and influence. In the United States, pro-Israel lobbying groups particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) rank among the most powerful political forces in Washington. Through campaign donations, targeted advocacy, and close ties with lawmakers, AIPAC ensures unwavering bipartisan support for Israel, even when its policies clash with international law or American interests (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007). Europe is no exception. Israel maintains a sophisticated network of lobby groups and political alliances to sway EU decision-making. Organizations like the European Jewish Congress and the Combat Anti-Semitism Movement (CAM) work to frame criticism of Israel as antisemitism, pressuring European leaders to avoid tough stances on issues like illegal settlements. Pro-Israel lobbyists also cultivate relationships with right-wing and centrist parties, ensuring that EU resolutions critical of Israel are either watered down or blocked entirely. While the Zionist lobby appears to have greater influence over American policy in a clear and overt manner, the Zionist lobby operating in European politics has the same influence on European policies, albeit in a clear and covert manner. This is due to the difference in political decision-making mechanisms between the United States and Europe. The Zionist lobby’s grip on Western policies thrives because Israel frames itself as a ‘Western outpost’ in the Middle East. Israel portrays itself as the sole state representing Western values ​​in the Middle East, and it also evokes pangs of conscience in Europeans over what happened to Jews in Europe after World War I. Zionist lobbies confront European decision-makers with such narratives(Uğur, 2014). Netanyahu today relies on endless and unconditional Western support to ignite wars in the Middle East and ensure his continued rule for years to come, portraying these wars as existential wars for Israel. Israel’s insistence on its ‘right to exist’ contrasts with its denial of Palestinian statehood, a hypocrisy shielded by Western allies. This European stagnation is met with Arab stagnation and silence, despite the greater consequences of this conflict that Arab countries will face. However, due to their policies of continued reliance on American protection, Arab countries lack real action in determining the fate of the region. All they are trying to do today is anticipate and contain the damage they will face as a result of this conflict.

The Arab inability to make any decisions regarding the challenges facing the region is matched by the inability of other Islamic countries that face the same threats. While Turkey issued a statement condemning the Israeli attack on Iran, Pakistan expressed its support for Iran against the Israeli aggression because it views an attack on a sovereign state as the beginning of the isolation of Islamic countries, especially those with military power that could threaten Israeli supremacy in the Middle East. The divergent positions of Islamic countries regarding the Israeli attack on Iran are evidence of a state of weakness and fragmentation of interests due to decades of policies or wars imposed on them by Western countries. Iraq and Afghanistan are still recovering from the American wars against them. Yemen, Sudan, and Libya are experiencing internal wars and chaos. Lebanon and Syria are also deprived of their sovereignty due to repeated Israeli attacks. All this fragmentation within these countries is matched by weakness and fear on the part of other countries due to economic interests, such as the Gulf states, Egypt, and Turkey. Today's geopolitical conflict is not ordinary and will expand and extend to the region, with significant repercussions for the world and the global economy. The rapid changes taking place in this conflict make it difficult to predict its outcomes, but they will undoubtedly be disastrous for the region and the world. Furthermore, the increased tensions that these wars may cause between countries will increase the likelihood of wars in other conflict zones. In these cases, neither the Security Council nor the United Nations can be relied upon to make any decisive decisions to stop the wars or ensure compliance with international law. Therefore, countries seeking to achieve security in their regions must establish their own system outside the framework of nuclear states. Western countries, the former colonial powers, are moving towards extremism and violence with the increase in wars and tension around the world, and at the same time the role of international institutions is confined to their own buildings only.