The Israeli attack on the Iranian Consulate in Damascus has escalated regional tensions to unprecedented heights, once again thrusting the intricate geopolitics of the Middle East into the spotlight. Iran’s retaliation to this aggression has resonated not only within the region but also on a global scale. Its response was twofold: to display their military prowess and to convey a political message to the international community. This marked the first instance since 1973 of a state responding militarily to Israel at a conventional level, thereby disrupting the longstanding status quo of Israeli immunity. Through these actions, Iran seeks to enhance its deterrence against regional and global actors while simultaneously solidifying its domestic political position.
The Iranian attack was executed through a sophisticated military operation involving cruise and ballistic missiles, as well as drones, collectively known as Shaded 136. Open sources have confirmed Iran’s utilization of 185 Shahid-136 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), 36 Paveh surface-to-surface cruise missiles with a range of 1,650 kilometers (1,025 miles), 110 Ghadir missiles developed in various versions in the early 2000s, the liquid-fueled and medium-range Emad ballistic missile, the Dezful medium-range ballistic missile introduced in 2019, and the 1,450-kilometer-range Khyber Shekhan missile, purportedly highly maneuverable against air defense systems. Although Israel’s air defense systems successfully intercepted the majority of these Iranian attacks, they also exposed the limitations of Israel’s defenses, underscoring its vulnerabilities. Israeli sources reported neutralizing the drones and cruise missiles before they breached Israeli airspace, while five ballistic missiles struck the Nevatim Air Base and four targeted the Negev Air Base.
This recent confrontation between Israel and Iran raises questions about Israel’s influence and security strategy, while also aiming to bolster Iran’s deterrence as a regional power. The initial attack by Israel and Iran’s subsequent retaliation demonstrates that both nations are involved in interactions not only within their own borders but also on regional and global scales. These interactions often impact the diplomatic and security policies of the United States and other major powers.
The U.S. role in the conflict has been marked by its ongoing support for Israel alongside heightened diplomatic efforts to prevent further escalation. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s appeal for support from China and Russia’s stance underscores the global significance of the crisis. The fact that the U.S. and its allies have urged Iran to exercise restraint to avoid further escalation indicates the importance of managing the crisis in a controlled manner. Conversely, Iran’s retaliation provides insight into how the regional military coalition against Iran may respond.
Iran’s retaliatory “Operation True Promise” posed a significant challenge to Israel’s air defense systems. While systems like the Iron Dome have generally been effective against Iranian missile and drone attacks, it is important to note that Israel doesn’t always maintain the upper hand. The relatively low cost of offense compared to the high economic cost of defense makes the long-term sustainability of war a critical concern for Israel. Therefore, Iran’s offensive capabilities continue to pose a persistent threat.
Furthermore, statements from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Hossein Salami suggest a shift in the traditional pattern of Israeli-Iranian military confrontation. Salami emphasized that Iran has established a new equation with its retaliatory operation against Israel. According to this equation, Salami stated that future Israeli attacks on Iranian interests, assets, personnel and citizens will be met with direct responses from Iranian territory.
On the flip side, Israel’s response underscores its inability to operate independently in the international arena. The presence and support of the U.S. in the region play a pivotal role in shaping Israel’s decision-making processes. This dependency on international diplomacy and military assistance reveals Israel’s reliance on external factors to formulate its regional security policies. Moreover, the conflict has ignited various political dynamics within Israel itself. The security policies of the Netanyahu government have faced criticism from both domestic and international spheres, proving to be unsustainable. Israeli public opinion is divided regarding the government’s handling of the crisis, with some advocating for a more aggressive approach towards Iran, while others highlight the risks associated with escalating into a large-scale war.
Israel’s response following the attack will significantly impact regional security dynamics and is likely to influence the policies of global powers toward the region. Israel is typically proactive in addressing security threats, but in this instance, caution is warranted to prevent potential larger-scale Iranian retaliation. This highlights the importance of U.S. support for Israel, which should primarily manifest as diplomatic and strategic backing rather than direct military intervention.
Considering the potential escalation scenarios of the Iran-Israel conflict, it becomes evident that the crisis remains unresolved. There are two primary scenarios for the future of military escalation between Israel and Iran. The first scenario could unfold as follows: Israel delivers a symbolic military response, Iran remains silent and the crisis diminishes.
In this scenario, Israel is likely to execute a symbolic military action against Iran. Such a response typically involves limited objectives and is not intended to cause significant damage. For instance, Israel might conduct airstrikes in military camps or abandoned facilities belonging to Iran’s regional allies. This action may serve to showcase Israel’s strength to the international community while simultaneously averting further escalation of the conflict. Additionally, Israel may consider carrying out a similar strike within Iranian territory.
In this scenario, Iran’s lack of response would likely contain the crisis. If Iran remains silent, backed by international pressure and negotiations, it could effectively reduce tensions between the parties and prevent further escalation of the conflict. However, the outcome may vary depending on Iran’s domestic political landscape and regional reputation. Should Iran be perceived as weak by domestic public opinion, this could potentially trigger changes in domestic politics.
The second scenario entails an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities and a strong Iranian retaliation. Israel’s comprehensive and significant strikes would target Iran’s nuclear facilities, such as the Natanz and Fordow sites where uranium enrichment occurs. The objective would be to substantially diminish Iran’s nuclear capabilities and, ultimately, eliminate its ability to acquire nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, such strikes could result in severe regional and international repercussions.
In this scenario, Iran is expected to retaliate swiftly and forcefully to such attacks. This retaliation could manifest in large-scale missile strikes against Israel or assaults on Israel’s regional allies. Such actions could rapidly escalate into a regional war, drawing in Iranian-backed groups from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
The intervention of the international community would become inevitable in this scenario. The U.S. and other Western powers may align with Israel, while other major powers like Russia and China could support Iran or intensify diplomatic efforts to contain the conflict. Additionally, such a conflict could inflict damage on the global economy, resulting in spikes in oil prices and widespread economic instability.
Both scenarios underscore the potential pathways of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran and their regional and international ramifications. An attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could precipitate the collapse of the deal altogether, resulting in heightened instability in the region. Such a scenario would draw the attention of other major powers, including Russia and China, potentially amplifying their influence and involvement in regional conflicts. Israel’s retaliation might also afford Iran the opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons, which could arguably be the most significant ramification of the current escalation between the two countries.
