By Md. Muddassir Quamar
In the early hours of April 14, 2024, the Middle East witnessed a new military spectacle when Iran launched nearly 300 projectiles, including 120 ballistic missiles, 170 drones and 30 cruise missiles, targeting Israel. This was a testimony of Iran’s advanced long-range surface-to-surface missile capabilities and was the second time in 2024 when Iran used it against ‘enemy’ targets. In January, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had targeted locations in Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan holding it responsible for creating instability inside Iran.
However, the attack on Israel is fundamentally different given it was carefully calibrated and it was a large-scale military operation carried out at a distant location. Besides military capacity and prowess, the attacks demonstrated the willingness of the Islamic Republic to directly target territories inside Israel ignoring and breaching Israel’s deterrence and challenging the military superiority of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Further, it underlined that Irna is willing to engage in a direct military confrontation with Israel notwithstanding the latter’s strategic alliance with the United States.
Also Read “O Canada”– A Distant Dream for International Students? Wake-up call from Supreme Court Food systems under Modi 3.0 Decoding India-Mauritius DTAA protocol
The possibility of Iran striking Israeli targets was looming since the Israeli attack on an Iranian consulate building in Damascus that killed seven people including a senior IRGC commander Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his deputy Mohammad Hadi Hajriahimi. Iranian leaders had vowed to retaliate, arguing that targeting of a consulate building is akin to attacking Iranian territory.
Also Read
Emerging contours of Iran-Israel conflict and Indian options – World News | The Financial Express
For Tehran, the space for not responding at all to the Israeli strike was limited given that it would have reflected weakness against an adversary. The choice was between responding directly or through a covert or proxy operation. Given that thus far, Tehran had preferred the latter, it was considered a more likely option. However, Iran chose a direct military action with the aim of bolstering its domestic, regional and international image while simultaneously demonstrating that the US and Israeli military threats are no longer a deterrence for Iran.
The Iranian attack was accompanied by public statements and communication to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) stating that for Iran, the matter should be considered “concluded” meaning Iran has avenged the Israeli attack on its consulate in Damascus and does not wish to escalate the matter further. It warned Israel that another military action against Iran would lead to a “much larger” response. Iran also warned the US against joining the war between Iran and Israel.
While demonstrating the military prowess of Iran, the attacks underscored the limitation of Iranian offensive capabilities against Israel. That Israel, with the help of the US, was able to successfully neutralize the attack and avoid any serious damage to life and infrastructure speaks volumes about Israel’s defensive capabilities. Hence, Joe Biden while expressing the US’s “ironclad” support for Israeli defense advised Benjamin Netanyahu to take the successful defense as a “win” and avoid retaliating against Iran to avoid further escalation. The Biden administration made it apparent that the US military will not join in any offensive action against Iran.
Also Read
Israel-Iran Conflict: Biden administration vows full US support amidst escalating tension – Defence News | The Financial Express
The apparent question that arises is what will Israel do? Is not responding an option for Israel? What does the domestic constituency want? And, what will be the military calculus? Not responding at all will mean conceding advantage to Iran and accepting the end of Israeli deterrence. The domestic constituency in Israel would want to see a proportionate response that will satisfy the urge to settle the score. Hence, it is unlikely that Israel will let the Iranian attack go unanswered. The question, therefore, is not whether Israel will retaliate or not, rather how and when it will respond.
Within Israel, the opinion is divided on how to respond. One view is to undertake an immediate and crushing military operation to establish military superiority and deterrence as was expressed by the Israeli Minister for National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir. This is possible given IDF’s well-established offensive capabilities. However, the catch is that it will open another front when the Gaza War is still continuing. Also, since Israel has to retaliate alone, it may not be the most rational choice. The alternative view is to take time, plan and undertake an overt but limited operation inside Iran, most likely targeting IRGC infrastructure and its personnel or even Iranian nuclear installations. Israel has in the past demonstrated its capacity to reach targets inside Iran by killing Iranian nuclear scientists.
The ball is in Israeli court now and the likelihood of the Iranian attack going unanswered is unlikely. It is for Netanyahu to choose a response. He will be pressed to take swift and decisive action. But the possibility of a direct war with Iran and its financial cost would mean that he might choose to respond with a limited military operation inside Iran targeting either an IRGC base or a nuclear plant or both. What is clear is that an Israeli response is imminent.
Also Read
Israel threatens direct retaliation against Iran amid escalating tensions – World News | The Financial Express
The question thus is what the possible consequences are
Firstly, Israel and Iran are likely to engage in tit-for-tat attacks and counterattacks and the frequency and intensity of these will depend on the military calculus and political will of the Iranian and Israeli political and military elites. Secondly, there is a likelihood of increased attacks by the “axis of resistance” against Israeli targets within and outside the Middle East. Thirdly, there remains a possibility of a direct military confrontation erupting between the two in which case the US might also provide support to Israel. Finally, and the most likely scenario is that all of the above will happen; that is, there would be more attacks against each other, Iranian proxies will continue to threaten Israel and Iran will respond to attacks inside its territory by attacking Israeli territory. Yet, an immediate widespread war can still be prevented, if the two sides decide to keep the attacks and counter attacks within the acceptable threshold as both would want to avoid fighting a costly war within their territory.
Nonetheless, the Iranian decision to attack Israel with a barrage of missiles and drones makes it clear that the war between Israel and Iran is entering a new phase, transitioning from shadow boxing into a direct war. What remains to be seen is whether it would be a limited war or devolve into an all-out and widespread regional conflict engulfing Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan in addition to Israel and Iran.
The author is Associate Professor of Middle East studies in Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. @MuddassirQuamar
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.
By Md. Muddassir Quamar
In the early hours of April 14, 2024, the Middle East witnessed a new military spectacle when Iran launched nearly 300 projectiles, including 120 ballistic missiles, 170 drones and 30 cruise missiles, targeting Israel. This was a testimony of Iran’s advanced long-range surface-to-surface missile capabilities and was the second time in 2024 when Iran used it against ‘enemy’ targets. In January, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had targeted locations in Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan holding it responsible for creating instability inside Iran.
However, the attack on Israel is fundamentally different given it was carefully calibrated and it was a large-scale military operation carried out at a distant location. Besides military capacity and prowess, the attacks demonstrated the willingness of the Islamic Republic to directly target territories inside Israel ignoring and breaching Israel’s deterrence and challenging the military superiority of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Further, it underlined that Irna is willing to engage in a direct military confrontation with Israel notwithstanding the latter’s strategic alliance with the United States.
The possibility of Iran striking Israeli targets was looming since the Israeli attack on an Iranian consulate building in Damascus that killed seven people including a senior IRGC commander Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his deputy Mohammad Hadi Hajriahimi. Iranian leaders had vowed to retaliate, arguing that targeting of a consulate building is akin to attacking Iranian territory.
For Tehran, the space for not responding at all to the Israeli strike was limited given that it would have reflected weakness against an adversary. The choice was between responding directly or through a covert or proxy operation. Given that thus far, Tehran had preferred the latter, it was considered a more likely option. However, Iran chose a direct military action with the aim of bolstering its domestic, regional and international image while simultaneously demonstrating that the US and Israeli military threats are no longer a deterrence for Iran.
The Iranian attack was accompanied by public statements and communication to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) stating that for Iran, the matter should be considered “concluded” meaning Iran has avenged the Israeli attack on its consulate in Damascus and does not wish to escalate the matter further. It warned Israel that another military action against Iran would lead to a “much larger” response. Iran also warned the US against joining the war between Iran and Israel.
While demonstrating the military prowess of Iran, the attacks underscored the limitation of Iranian offensive capabilities against Israel. That Israel, with the help of the US, was able to successfully neutralize the attack and avoid any serious damage to life and infrastructure speaks volumes about Israel’s defensive capabilities. Hence, Joe Biden while expressing the US’s “ironclad” support for Israeli defense advised Benjamin Netanyahu to take the successful defense as a “win” and avoid retaliating against Iran to avoid further escalation. The Biden administration made it apparent that the US military will not join in any offensive action against Iran.
The apparent question that arises is what will Israel do? Is not responding an option for Israel? What does the domestic constituency want? And, what will be the military calculus? Not responding at all will mean conceding advantage to Iran and accepting the end of Israeli deterrence. The domestic constituency in Israel would want to see a proportionate response that will satisfy the urge to settle the score. Hence, it is unlikely that Israel will let the Iranian attack go unanswered. The question, therefore, is not whether Israel will retaliate or not, rather how and when it will respond.
Within Israel, the opinion is divided on how to respond. One view is to undertake an immediate and crushing military operation to establish military superiority and deterrence as was expressed by the Israeli Minister for National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir. This is possible given IDF’s well-established offensive capabilities. However, the catch is that it will open another front when the Gaza War is still continuing. Also, since Israel has to retaliate alone, it may not be the most rational choice. The alternative view is to take time, plan and undertake an overt but limited operation inside Iran, most likely targeting IRGC infrastructure and its personnel or even Iranian nuclear installations. Israel has in the past demonstrated its capacity to reach targets inside Iran by killing Iranian nuclear scientists.
The ball is in Israeli court now and the likelihood of the Iranian attack going unanswered is unlikely. It is for Netanyahu to choose a response. He will be pressed to take swift and decisive action. But the possibility of a direct war with Iran and its financial cost would mean that he might choose to respond with a limited military operation inside Iran targeting either an IRGC base or a nuclear plant or both. What is clear is that an Israeli response is imminent.
Firstly, Israel and Iran are likely to engage in tit-for-tat attacks and counterattacks and the frequency and intensity of these will depend on the military calculus and political will of the Iranian and Israeli political and military elites. Secondly, there is a likelihood of increased attacks by the “axis of resistance” against Israeli targets within and outside the Middle East. Thirdly, there remains a possibility of a direct military confrontation erupting between the two in which case the US might also provide support to Israel. Finally, and the most likely scenario is that all of the above will happen; that is, there would be more attacks against each other, Iranian proxies will continue to threaten Israel and Iran will respond to attacks inside its territory by attacking Israeli territory. Yet, an immediate widespread war can still be prevented, if the two sides decide to keep the attacks and counter attacks within the acceptable threshold as both would want to avoid fighting a costly war within their territory.
Nonetheless, the Iranian decision to attack Israel with a barrage of missiles and drones makes it clear that the war between Israel and Iran is entering a new phase, transitioning from shadow boxing into a direct war. What remains to be seen is whether it would be a limited war or devolve into an all-out and widespread regional conflict engulfing Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan in addition to Israel and Iran.
The author is Associate Professor of Middle East studies in Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. @MuddassirQuamar
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.
Get live Share Market updates, Stock Market Quotes, and the latest India News and business news on Financial Express. Download the Financial Express App for the latest finance news.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
visit website
