By breaking the taboo against open military attacks on each other’s territory, Israel and Iran have ushered the Middle East into a perilous new era.
Now the question is if the deterrent and face-saving imperatives of both sides have been met, or if the adversaries will inevitably embark on a new escalation cycle that could worsen the problem.
After Israeli strikes near Isfahan early Friday, the initiative is now with Iran.
Based on first assessments, it appears that the operation was not comprehensive and did not target any Iranian nuclear sites in the vicinity, as stated by US officials. After Iran’s extraordinary missile and drone strike on Israel this weekend, which was mostly foiled, it may have been meant to show that Israel can penetrate deep into Iran.
The fact that Israel has decided to target an Iranian internal rather than an Iranian proxy in Syria or Iraq, for example, elevates the stakes and makes it more likely that the clash might escalate rapidly.
Following an Israeli attack on Iranian consular premises in Damascus, Syria, that killed two senior officials of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Israel launched an offensive last weekend, which was mainly thwarted by defensive systems deployed by Israel, the United States, and its allies.
Israel seems to be attempting to walk a fine line with its strikes, showing that it can avoid Iranian defenses at will (even near Iranian nuclear facilities), without provoking Iran to respond with more escalations that could lead to all-out war, according to the latest development in the crisis.
The area is on high alert six months into Israel’s war in Gaza, and political tensions are high inside both nations, making it difficult for any side to precisely predict the other’s reaction—a danger inherent in attempting to negotiate this tight road.
For example, Iran has threatened a strong reaction to any Israeli attack just hours before Israel’s strikes. According to AWN’s interview with Iran’s foreign minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, such action would be “immediate and at a maximum level.”
Nevertheless, there were early signs on Friday that Iran is ready to end this stage of escalation without increasing the level of confrontation, and that Israel may have considered US and Western worries about starting a big regional war despite rejecting international calls for restraint.
Iranian state-run media and officials played down the incident on Friday. Furthermore, a regional intelligence source who is familiar with Iran’s possible response to Friday’s strike stated that the two adversaries’ direct state-to-state strikes were “over.” An anonymous source informed AWN that Iran was not anticipated to reply to the strikes, but did not specify why. The person was not authorized to speak publicly.
If what happens next is any indication, Israel might end up implementing a strategic principle outlined by President John F. Kennedy in 1963, when he was thinking back on the Cuban missile crisis the year before: statesmanship should strive to “avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.” Instead of a nuclear holocaust, the region may have been engulfed in a massive conventional battle that would have murdered many Iranians, Israelis, and citizens of neighboring countries. The current state of affairs suggests that the key to controlling the situation is that neither Iran nor Israel have been compelled to make a humiliating retreat.
Anew, Netanyahu rejects Biden’s calls
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected President Joe Biden’s proposal to celebrate the successful intercept of almost all missiles and drones aimed at Israel in his attack on Iran. After the huge defense operation, the president claimed Iran couldn’t threaten Israel’s security, thus there was no need for additional retribution.
Israel appears to have made an effort to address US and Western concerns about a potential broader war, but Netanyahu has consistently disregarded Biden’s pleas, including months of US criticism of Israel’s handling of the Gaza conflict and the casualties suffered by Palestinian civilians in the aftermath of the October 7th Hamas terror attacks. The president is growing more and more angry with Netanyahu, but he still refuses to put conditions on US weapons supplies to Gaza or set red lines for the Israeli prime minister.
However, Biden also faced the fact that Israel is a sovereign nation that, despite its heavy reliance on the US, would never stand by and let a massive airstrike on its land go unrecognized. Washington has shifted its focus to a fresh initiative to de-escalate tensions and distance itself from Israel’s action in light of recent events.
“Our work to de-escalate tensions is what we’re focused on, what the G7 is focused on, and again, it’s reflected in our statement and in our conversation,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated at a summit of foreign ministers from industrialized nations gathered in Italy.
In recent days, the White House has made it plain that it will not participate in any Israeli aggressive operations targeting Iran. However, in the case of a significant Iranian response, it is highly probable that US military forces will once again be required to protect Israel. Thus, Biden runs the risk of being further entangled in a regional military war, despite his repeated attempts to avoid it. If Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee, says the world will spin out of control while he is in office, it will have serious electoral ramifications for the president in November. There is a real risk that Biden’s performance in the swing states that determine the presidential election may suffer further damage from the progressive, young, and Arab American voters who have already punished him severely for his backing of Israel. The president could face electoral fallout if, in the run-up to the election, oil prices climb due to unpredictability in the Middle East, which could increase fuel prices.
A disturbing global scenario becomes apparent
Israeli forces are extremely exposed, despite their superior military might. It is currently engaged in a trilateral combat, with the first front being the Iranian government in Tehran, the second being a proxy war with Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon, and the third being the fight against Hamas in Gaza.
Even more dangerous than the rockets fired by Hamas before the beginning of the Gaza War were Hezbollah’s tens of thousands of missiles, which could unleash havoc on Israeli cities. Israel would undoubtedly launch a strong response if Hezbollah were to fully intervene in the battle on Iran’s behalf. Lebanon, a country afflicted by a tragic modern past and host to militias backed by Iran, would be plunged into war once again if that happened.
Even if a regional conflict doesn’t break out right now, the events of the past few days have destroyed the presumption that Iran would never openly attack Israel and that Israel would never attack Iranian soil.
According to Aaron David Miller, a seasoned negotiator for both Republican and Democratic presidents in the Middle East, “the reality is that Israel and Iran are going to be locked in this competitive struggle”—even if this phase passes without a strong Iranian response, as Miller told AWN. The issue of Iranian proxies will not go away. The reality that Iran is a state that is close to possessing nuclear weapons remains unsolved. Additionally, the region and maybe the international community will feel the weight of this partnership as if it were a sword of Damocles.
Not only did the US and Israeli forces work together to fire down Iranian missiles and drones last weekend, but other European and Arab nations also put pressure on Israel to exercise restraint. Even while the United States will always back Israel, the other countries’ reactions will be crucial now that Netanyahu has chosen to disregard the counsel of Israel’s supporters. Israel could start to mend relationships with friends who had harshly condemned its handling of the Gaza War if it rode a wave of public sympathy and support, which was one reason it didn’t retaliate against Iran. That chance may already have been missed.
Nevertheless, Israel believes it is engaged in a crucial conflict with Iran, which has manifested itself thus far through clandestine and cyberattacks against Iran’s nuclear program, scientists, and intelligence and military facilities. Despite American calls for moderation, Israeli officials have a history of acting alone when they perceive a threat to Israel’s survival. Israel has attacked Iraqi and Syrian nuclear sites in the past, all in the name of this ideology.
By retaliating against Israel following the Damascus strike, Iran was subtly signaling that Israel would no longer be able to avoid consequences for its actions and would face a direct response.
The concept that Iran had the upper hand in their geopolitical game of chicken would have been inconceivable to Israel’s war cabinet, which deliberated for days over how to respond to the Iranian airstrike.
The most recent developments have indeed laid the groundwork for a long-term escalatory cycle that stems from instability in the region, according to Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, who spoke with Michael Holmes of AWN. However, Israel’s apparent ability to avoid Iran’s air defenses could potentially help them regain strategic advantage. “It does seem to convey a message to Tehran that they are actually more susceptible to Israeli strikes than they would prefer to acknowledge,” Davis remarked.
Some experts are concerned that Iran, which is believed to be just weeks away from being able to develop its own nuclear weapon, may rush past the nuclear threshold in response to the new reality of direct interactions with Israel. The United States and Israel would both find that untenable, therefore the recent uptick in tensions could be a precursor to far worse things to come.