Iran–Israel Escalation: Regional Clash, Global Consequences

Tensions flared up in the Middle East as tensions between Iran and Israel have escalated to the point where the stakes cannot be any higher.

After Israel launched an unprecedented operation aimed at Iran’s nuclear program facilities, scientists, and military personnel, the question that many people ask is how the nations got to this point. After all, Tehran and Tel Aviv have frequently exchanged verbal jabs, yet rarely engaged in direct military confrontation before 2024.

Several considerations impacted Israel’s decision to launch an operation against Iran, which we intend to explore. Furthermore, we shall assess the risks associated with the escalation between the two nations.

Lessons from the past

First, it is necessary to examine previous military exchanges between Iran and Israel to understand the nature of potential responses that Israel may face. On April 13, 2024, Iran launched operation ‘True Promise’ in response to Israel striking an Iranian diplomatic building in Damascus and killing two Iranian generals. More than 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and around 120 ballistic missiles have been launched by Iran. Israel and its allies have shot down 99% of aerial targets, limiting the destruction.

A few months later, on October 1, 2024, Iran once again launched around 200 ballistic missiles against Israel, claiming that Tehran exercises the right to self-defence after Israel assassinated HAMAS leader Ismayil Haniyeh, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps general Abbas Nilforoushan.

Some reports suggest that several Iranian missiles managed to break through the defence line and struck an Israeli airbase. However, the IDF said that Israel’s air force capabilities have not been harmed during the attack.

The two attacks illustrate that Iran possesses long-range strike capabilities, which pose a level of threat to Israel. However, in both instances, Israeli air defence systems managed to shoot down a significant number of aerial targets, limiting the damage and the effectiveness of Iran’s operation.

It is feasible to suggest that Israeli military decision-makers believe that any possible response by Iran to the recent operation will follow a similar approach, and Israeli air defence should be able to limit the threat of Iran’s long-range strikes.

Structural political considerations

Significant changes in the structure of political relations in the Middle East explain why Israel and Iran are more willing to escalate beyond verbal jabs. Before the 2023 HAMAS attack against Israel, Tel Aviv found itself in a very challenging military and political situation. Israel had to deal with several unfriendly states, in addition to monitoring and controlling the activities of non-state actors such as HAMAS and Hezbollah.

The war in Gaza enabled Israel to weaken HAMAS significantly, curbing the threat and relieving some of the pressure on Israel. The subsequent spillover of the conflict to Lebanon, and the strike on the Hezbollah headquarters that killed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the organisation, further crippled anti-Israeli forces in the region. As both Hezbollah and HAMAS enjoyed good relations with Iran, the weakening of the two non-state actors also means that Iran’s position in the region has weakened, while Israel’s position improved.

In this context, it is also crucial to examine the nuclear talks between Iran and the US. One of the key issues of contention preventing the parties from reaching an agreement is Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Iran describes its enrichment program as a ‘non-negotiable’ right, while Washington treats it as a red line. Unsurprisingly, this matter is of significant concern to Tel Aviv as well.

As the negotiators failed to achieve a breakthrough on this matter during several rounds of talks, it looks like Tehran is unwilling to compromise, and the US has limited tools to sway Iran’s decision in a favorable direction. Consequently, one of the reasons why Israel chose to launch its operation against Iran’s nuclear scientists and facilities is the lack of progress during the talks between Iran and the US.

From the Israeli perspective, striking Iran while Tehran does not possess nuclear weapons is a more attractive option, as the risks and consequences of military action would rise dramatically once Iran achieves nuclear capability.

Uncertainty and the decline of the global political order

The last few years can hardly be categorised as peaceful. Conflicts of varying intensity emerge in various regions of the planet, pointing to a troubling dynamic: peace becomes a highly valued commodity hard to achieve. The war in Ukraine, fighting in the Middle East, conflicts in Africa, and the skirmishes between Pakistan and India are symptoms of a geopolitical disease. The existing world order is ill-equipped to maintain peace.

Conflict flare-ups in various parts of the world demonstrate that big powers, which have traditionally mediated political and military tensions, are incapable of pacifying tensions. Furthermore, the interests of big powers in these conflicts are intertwined. Tensions in the Middle East impact the interests of the parties to the conflict in Ukraine, which in turn affects the EU and so forth.

Consequently, the realm of geopolitics and international relations becomes more uncertain and unpredictable. Uncertainty becomes the driving force behind the conflicts in most parts of the world, and the recent escalation between Israel and Iran is not an exception.

Dilemma for Iran and Israel

The escalation represents a gamble for Israel and Iran. From Tel Aviv’s perspective, such a drastic escalation may not be greeted warmly by Israel’s allies.  Particularly noteworthy is the change in the rhetoric of some Western states, which have recently voiced anti-Israeli sentiments. Furthermore, although Israel was able to improve the regional balance of power, Iran continues to remain dangerous.

Meanwhile, this situation presents a set of risks for Iran as well. It is improbable that Iran will choose not to respond. After all, striking nuclear facilities, high-ranking military personnel, and nuclear scientists is a severe blow to Iran.

Another major risk is linked to environmental damage control. It is unclear whether the strikes on nuclear facilities have led or will lead to a spillover of nuclear waste. The major issue here is the inability of the International Atomic Energy Agency personnel to evaluate the situation on the ground due to the high-risk environment. Such a development will, undoubtedly, be the worst outcome due to its impact on Iran and other states in the region.

Yet, Iran and Israel might not be interested in a full-blown war. The all-out war scenario introduces significant risks to both nations, with the losing side jeopardising its regional influence. A breakout of the war may change the political landscape in the Middle East, further contributing to future political uncertainty, amplifying the potential for future conflict.

Conclusion

The latest escalation raises several important questions that policy-makers in Iran, Israel, and other states need to consider. The biggest question now is what needs to be done to stabilise the situation, given that both sides possess far more destructive potential than exhibited up to this point.

Beyond the immediate military stakes, there is another potential consideration for policymakers - a possible environmental disaster in the event of potential nuclear contamination. It is essential to guarantee rapid engagement to eliminate the risk of a catastrophe that transcends the borders of warring parties.

The escalation between Israel and Iran is a multifaceted issue, presenting a set of strategic challenges to both nations and having a global impact. While the recent escalation is only an episode in the highly volatile bilateral relations between the two countries, rapid response is needed to avoid a far more devastating outcome. 

Copied