Israel’s attack on Iran extends the Middle Eastern conflict. Decisions being decided by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his key advisers center on avoiding, or risking, an even worse escalation.
They have to choose from a set of challenging decisions the least worst of which. One extreme of the spectrum is rebuffing with another blast of ballistic missiles. Israel has already pledged to respond once more should that occur.
At the other end is choosing to draw a line under the damaging direct strikes on their individual regions. If Iran keeps its firing, it runs the danger of seeming weak, terrified and discouraged by Israel’s military might and political will supported by the United States.
Ultimately, the supreme leader and his supporters are probably going to decide that, from their perspective, does least damage to the viability of Iran’s Islamic government.
Empty vows?
Officially, Iran’s media in the hours before and following Israel’s strikes expressed rebellious remarks implying, at face value, the choice to react had already been determined. Emphasizing its right to protect itself against assault, its discourse sounds like Israel’s. The risks are so great, though, that Iran might choose to retract her threats.
Britain’s Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who joined in behind America’s claim that Israel has acted in self-defence, hopes this.
“I am clear that Israel has the right to defend itself against Iranian aggression,” he remarked. “I am also clear that we must stop more regional escalation and exhort all sides to use moderation. Iran ought not to react.”
From its ballistic missile on Israel on October 1, Iran’s own remarks have been consistent. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi informed Turkey’s NTV channel one week ago that “any attack on Iran will be considered crossing a red line for us.” Such an attack won’t go unpackled.
“Any aggression by the Israeli regime against Iran will be met with full force,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baqai declared hours before the Israeli assaults. To propose that Iran would not react to a modest Israeli attack, he added, “highly misleading and baseless”.
Iran’s foreign ministry asserted its right to self-defense “as ingrained in Article 51 of the UN Charter” as the Israeli aircraft were returning to base. Iran claimed it was both entitled and required to react to foreign acts of hostility.
Tragic interactions
Israel determined the rate of escalation starting in the spring. It regards Iran as
the major supporter of the Hamas strikes on 7 October last year that claimed
over 1,200 lives – Israelis and more than 70 foreign persons. Iran consistently
indicated it did not desire a full-scale war with Israel, fearing Israel was
searching for an opportunity for attack.
That did not mean it was ready to halt its relentless, often lethal lower-level
pressure on Israel and her friends.
The men of Tehran felt they had a better concept than all-out war. Rather, Iran
attacked Israel via the friends and proxies under its claimed “axis of
resistance”. The Houthis in Yemen stopped and wrecked Red Sea commerce.
From their homes, at least 60,000 Israelis were driven by Hezbollah rocket fire
from Lebanon.
Six months into the war, Israel’s reprisal drove maybe twice as many Lebanese
from their southern homes, but Israel was ready to do far more. It threatened
to respond should Hezbollah fail to hold its fire into Israel and withdraw from
the border.
Israel opted to break out from a battlefield molded by Iran’s limited, but
attritional war when that did not materialize. It delivered a sequence of
forceful blows that put Tehran’s Islamic government off balance and destroyed
its whole plan. That is why Iranian officials only have difficult decisions
following the most recent Israeli strikes.
Israel raised the pressure on Iran and its axis since Israel saw Iran’s
resistance to fight an all-out war as weakness. Israel’s commanders and
Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister, could afford to take chances. They had
President Joe Biden’s unambiguous support, a safety net shaped not only in
terms of large weaponry shipments but also in line with his choice to send
major American sea and air reinforcements to the Middle East to bolster US
dedication to defend Israel.
An Israeli airstrike on April 1 wrecked some of Iran’s diplomatic facility in
Damascus, the capital of Syria. Along with other prominent Irani officials from
the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), it executed Brig Gen Mohammed
Reza Zahedi, a major leader.
The Americans were incensed because they had not received warning or time to
activate their own troops. But Joe Biden’s backing did not change when Israel
paid for its crimes. Iran targeted with drones, cruise and ballistic missiles
on April 13. With significant assistance from military forces of the US, UK,
France, and Jordan, most were destroyed by Israel’s defenses.
Presumably attempting to avert what had become the most perilous moment in the
Middle East conflict, Biden begged Israel to “take the win.” Biden’s
strategy appeared to be working when Israel limited its reaction to a hit on an
air defense site.
Israel has steadily increased the battle with Iran and its axis of friends and
proxies, however, since summer. The most significant hits came from a military
attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s most crucial partner. As a main
component of its advance defense, Iran had spent years arming Hezbollah with a
vast array of weapons. Knowing Hezbollah would smash Israel from just over the
border in Lebanon would discourage an Israeli strike on Iran.
Israel, however, moved first, following strategies it had created since Hezbollah battled it to a standstill in the 2006 war. It blew up booby trapped pagers and walkie talkies it had misled Hezbollah into purchasing, invaded south Lebanon and assassinated Hezbollah’s leader Sheikh Hasan Nasrallah, a man who had been a symbol of relentless opposition to Israel for decades. According to Beirut’s officials, Israel’s attack in Lebanon has thus far claimed more than 2,500 lives, displaced more than 1.2 million, and severely damaged a nation already on its knees following almost total collapse of its economy.
Hezbollah is still fighting and killing Israeli soldiers within Lebanon while launching several rockets. But it is suffering after losing its arsenal and chief commander.
Iran decided it had to retaliate when their approach almost collapsed. Letting its supporters fight and die without reacting would undermine its leadership of the anti-western and anti-Israeli groups in the area. Its response was a far larger ballistic missile strike on Israel on October 1.
Israel’s answer was the Friday 25 October airstrikes. They arrived slower than anyone would have imagined. One could consider leaks of Israeli strategies as a factor.
Israel is also launching a significant onslaught into northern Gaza. With the Israeli force subjecting an entire community to bombing, blockade, and the possibility of famine, the UN human rights chief Volker Turk has dubbed it the deadliest point of Gaza’s war.
An outsider cannot know if Israel’s attack timing on Iran was intended to generate global attention away from northern Gaza. Perhaps, though, it was included in the computation.
halting an accelerating spiral of events
Stopping consecutive rounds of strikes and counterattacks is difficult when the nations involved feel they would be viewed as weak and determented if they fail to react. Wars turn out of hand in this manner.
Now, especially on this phase of the fight, the issue is whether Iran is ready to offer Israel the last word. Following 1 October, President Biden supported Israel’s choice for reprisal. Once more, he sought to prevent an even more deadly escalation by openly advising Israel not to target Iran’s most vital assets—its nuclear, oil and gas sites. Prime minister Netanyahu decided to follow his advise after he strengthened Israel’s defences by sending the THAAD anti-missile system to the country.
Should Donald Trump be granted a second term, he may be less worried than Biden regarding responding to Iranian reprisal with strikes on nuclear, oil and gas sites.
The Middle East waits once more. Israel’s choice not to target Iran’s most valuable assets could perhaps allow Tehran to delay a reaction, at least long enough for diplomats to do their jobs. The Iranians were signaling at the UN General Assembly last month that they were receptive to a fresh round of nuclear negotiations.
All of this should be quite important to people living outside the Middle East. Iran has always denied that it seeks a nuclear weapon. However, its nuclear knowledge and uranium enrichment have made a bomb within reach. Its chiefs have to be searching for fresh approaches to discourage their rivals. On their agenda could be developing a nuclear warhead for their ballistic missiles.
