Iran attacked Israel in the wee hours of Sunday, converting one of West Asia’s most ferocious shadow rivalries into an open military conflagration that has the potential to lead to a wider regional war.

But history didn’t begin this weekend.

History didn’t begin two weeks ago either when Israel attacked an Iranian diplomatic facility in Syria to kill a set of its military/security personnel, the reason Tehran said it had now attacked Tel Aviv. History didn’t begin in the past six months when Israel has been conducting the most brutal and inhuman assault on Gaza, the reason Iranian terror proxies across the region, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to Houthis in Red Sea, said that they were attacking Israel and its allies.

Neither did history begin on October 7 when Hamas, with or without the direct support of Tehran but definitely much to Tehran’s glee, conducted a brutal set of terror attacks against Israel, the reason Israel invaded Gaza. History didn’t begin with the Abraham Accords which saw Israel establish normal diplomatic ties with a set of its Arab neighbours and commence conversations with Saudi Arabia about the future of their ties, the reason Hamas probably decided to strike terror in Israel and invite an Israeli response and prevent a wider regional peace accord.

Neither did history begin with Donald Trump giving Israel an even bigger American diplomatic and military cover to continue its aggression while withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran, the reason Democrats believe that a tenuous political-military balance in the region got altered. Nor did history begin with the nuclear agreement with Iran during the Barack Obama years, the reason Republicans believe Tehran got the cushion to expand its military and diplomatic footprint in the region.

Depending on your own historical proclivities and how far back you want to dig, feel free to return to 1979 (when the Islamists took over Iran) or 1948 (when Israel was established) or the ancient era to discover the real and perceived roots of the contemporary conflict.

But each recent incident, especially in the last six months, has offered a reason, a justification, a trigger to one of the many actors in a mind-bogglingly complicated region to do what it thinks is in its interests. It may be intended to save face, to extract revenge, to serve the cause of justice, to establish deterrence, to degrade a rival, to change the public story, to win the narrative wars, to cynically accrue sympathy, to win international support, or, what is often at the core of the decision making of a political decision-maker, to stay in power. What is striking is that so much of what has happened, and how actors have responded, has been on predictable lines.

Hamas’s terror strikes, predictably, radicalised Israeli society and made the Israeli state furious. Benjamin Netanyahu — already a weak PM facing corruption charges, an unprecedented civil society movement for his assault on an independent judiciary, and at the helm of a fragmented coalition government — now faced the humiliation of presiding over the worst security failure in Israel’s history. Israel set up a predictable but an impossible-to-attain war aim of destroying Hamas altogether. This led to a dramatic invasion of Gaza that has resulted in over 33,000 civilians dead and close to two million displaced and invited charges of genocide.

The US, predictably, supported Israel through much of this invasion, at the cost of a fracture in its own society and dramatic erosion of its global credibility. But even as American patience began running thin with Israeli war crimes, and Joe Biden warned Netanyahu not to invade Rafah or asked him to ensure humanitarian aid to Gaza or protect civilians or strike a deal on hostages and ceasefire, Netanyahu did exactly what he wanted. And he has, predictably, wanted to prolong the conflict and the Israeli offensive, under the guise of securing Israel while actually making it more insecure, in order to stay on in power.

Facing American pressure, Netanyahu knew that the one thing that would bring back the west in general but Washington in particular back in his corner was an attack on Iranian personnel that would, predictably, invite a response from Tehran.

Tehran has now done exactly that, but in a manner that helps it save face but it hopes does not escalate into a wider war. The fact that Iran communicated its intentions publicly and privately over the past fortnight gave the US and Israel enough time to beef up defences. And that is why there is a wide asymmetry between the optics of the Iranian attack — the scale of it and the fact that it happened directly in Israeli territory — with the actual outcome of the attack — Israeli defences held firm, its western allies helped, and casualties have been minimal. Tehran has now said that for Iran, this round of confrontation is over if Israel stays restrained.

But the next chapter of this saga will now hinge on decision-making in two capitals. In Washington DC, Biden has already made it clear that the US stands with Israel against Iran. But he has also reportedly indicated to Netanyahu that Israel has proved its capabilities by showing its robust defence and ensuring that Iran failed in its strikes. There is, thus, no need for yet another retaliatory strike and the Israeli PM should “take the win”. Expect the G7 meeting to echo this message, of solidarity with Israel, of condemnation of Iran, but also a signal that de-escalation rather than escalation is the way forward.

In Tel Aviv however, this message may or may not be heard. The optics of the Iranian strike may lead Netanyahu to now strike inside Iranian territory. The Israeli security apparatus will be tempted to think that unless it responds directly, it will be a blow to its reputation and deterrence. This also helps Netanyahu distract global attention from the ongoing tragedy in Gaza and reinforce his credentials domestically. And the deepening of the Israel-Iran conflict helps him consolidate Republican support in US’s fractured domestic politics and ensure continued unconditional military and financial aid from America.

But while Netanyahu may want to have the last word in this round of confrontation with Iran, the other side gets a vote too. Whether Israel can find a way to respond without provoking a bigger Iranian counter-response or whether it can find a way to convince itself, and convince its angry citizens, that Iranian strikes represented a failure and therefore doesn’t require a further response is the key element to watch and will determine how this vicious cycle pans out next.

Even as the threat of a wider major power conflict returns to West Asia, spare a thought for Gaza. On ground zero of the worst humanitarian crisis the world has witnessed in recent decades, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians wait for relief and peace as those who speak for them, as well as other cynical national security machines in the region and beyond, run by political extremists of various religious persuasions, continue a war with no end in sight.