The response from Israel to Iran's attack last weekend has been eagerly anticipated in the Middle East, as tensions in the region continue to escalate. Since the war on Gaza began in October, there has been a constant fear that it could evolve into a larger conflict involving Iran, its allies, and Western countries like the United States.
Over the past six months, there have been instances of violence throughout the wider Middle East, with Israel and Iran-backed forces, particularly Hezbollah, engaging in tit-for-tat attacks. These attacks have followed a predictable pattern, with each incident marking a gradual escalation in hostilities.
Both sides have been careful in their actions, firing missiles and drones deeper into Lebanon and Israel, but incrementally increasing the distances and selecting targets with caution. Israel has been more daring, often pushing the boundaries of what is considered acceptable, possibly in an attempt to provoke Hezbollah into a more significant attack that would justify a more forceful response.
Despite the killing of several senior Hezbollah commanders, the group has refrained from using its long-range missiles thus far. However, when one of Iran's generals was killed in an alleged Israeli attack on Iran's embassy complex in Damascus, Tehran responded by directly attacking Israel.
Iran's attack marks the first time a foreign state has targeted Israel since 1991, raising the stakes significantly. However, Iranian officials have been careful to emphasize that their attack was "limited," with the majority of projectiles being drones that took hours to reach their targets and were ultimately intercepted.
Furthermore, Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that regional states were given a 72-hour warning before the attack, indicating that Iran did not intend to cause significant material damage.
Risk of Conflict
What lies ahead? There is a significant possibility that Israel will respond militarily in some capacity. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, known for his strong stance on security and his determination to keep Iran in check, is unlikely to let a direct attack from Iran go unanswered.
Israel, particularly right-wing factions like Netanyahu, takes pride in being seen as the dominant military power in the Middle East, and maintaining this image is crucial for deterrence, especially after the damage inflicted by Hamas during its October 7 attacks on Israel.
However, while the United States and other allies initially supported Israel in its conflict with Gaza, they are now desperately trying to convince Netanyahu to refrain from responding to Iran and risking a war that many, particularly Washington, would feel compelled to join.
"Take the victory," reportedly urged US President Joe Biden to Netanyahu, eager to avoid another detrimental US involvement in the Middle East during an election year when his popularity is already suffering due to his support for Israel, which has resulted in the deaths of nearly 34,000 Palestinians in Gaza.
The Biden administration likely understands that Israel will launch an attack – United Kingdom Foreign Secretary David Cameron has already acknowledged this – but they will exert pressure on Netanyahu to keep the retaliation limited, hoping that Iran does not respond and that both sides return to the familiar pattern of the cold proxy war that Israel and Iran have engaged in for years.
It seems that everyone involved, except perhaps for some of the more zealous figures in the Israeli government, wants to avoid an all-out war that would be devastating for all parties and the wider region.
However, this does not mean that each side does not have its own desired outcomes, all of which could potentially escalate into the conflict that they all claim to be eager to avoid.
Israel aims to restore its deterrence and have the final say in the matter.
Iran is determined to avoid appearing weak or failing to respond to escalating Israeli attacks. However, it is important to acknowledge the potential for miscalculation in such situations. Even if both sides desire to avoid a full-fledged conflict, unforeseen circumstances can lead to unintended consequences. History has shown us the dangers of miscalculations, as exemplified by the chain of events triggered by an assassination in Sarajevo that ultimately resulted in World War I and the loss of millions of lives.
Nevertheless, it is crucial to remember that war is not inevitable, and countries have the ability to step back from the brink. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 serves as a valuable lesson in crisis management. Despite the United States and the former Soviet Union coming dangerously close to a catastrophic nuclear war, a resolution was eventually reached, preventing disaster. Although the two countries remained adversaries for decades, the crisis was averted.
Similar to the past, a resolution to prevent the current crisis cannot solely rely on Iran and Israel. It must address the underlying causes that have brought the region to the brink of war, particularly Israel's devastating actions in Gaza. As long as the conflict persists and Israel continues to harm innocent civilians, there will always be potential triggers that could escalate the situation into a debilitating war.
Furthermore, the inability of global powers to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is the most entrenched issue in the region, will continue to breed instability. As long as the conflict remains unresolved and the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory persists, the region will remain susceptible to the eruption of war, eagerly awaiting the next spark that ignites the flames of conflict.
Comments
Post a Comment