Israel-Iran war comes out of the shadows

Some key questions about what what happens now

Isrel’s Iron Dome intercepts Iranian misisles over al-Aqsa Mosque

Thanks to everyone who took part in our threats conversation over the weekend. We had an informative and thoughtful discussion and I’m glad so many of you raised important questions and offered your perspectives.

There is a lot of discussion about whether Iran’s attack on Israel this weekend was more of a blockbuster action scene or a genuine threat.

On Saturday night, Iran unleashed a formidable arsenal—170 drones, 120 ballistic missiles, and 30 cruise missiles—targeting Israel from multiple directions. This episode, while a grand pyrotechnical display even Hollywood director Michael Bay might envy, was less about military effectiveness and more about theatrical posturing from Iran’s strategic playbook, ostensibly to avenge the assassination of an IRGC commander believed to be orchestrated by Israel.

Tehran’s attempt to demonstrate its prowess without triggering a full-blown war with Israel and its premier league allies, including the U.S., ended up as lots of noise and fury, mostly neutralized by Israel's Iron Dome. As the world held its breath for a catastrophic outcome, the aftermath unfolded with an anticlimactic whimper for Iran.

Still, these developments could recalibrate the longstanding shadow war between Israel and Iran, potentially drawing in global powers and escalating into a broader conflict.

Here are some key questions about the implications of the attack:

Did Israel Create Deterrence Against Iran? Israel's showcase of the Iron Dome and Arrow systems wasn't just a defensive maneuver; it served as a global demonstration of its cutting-edge military technology, effectively advertising its capabilities to potential allies and adversaries alike. This display underscored a clear message of deterrence: Israel remains a fortress, capable of nullifying sophisticated threats with relative ease. However, the scale of Israel's response and its air defense success primarily serve a defensive rather than strategic offensive capability. This action reinforces Israel's short-term security by possibly deterring immediate future assaults but might not suffice to prevent long-term escalations or change Iran’s strategic calculations. The incident reinforces Israel's image as a robust military power but also highlights the inherent instability in relying solely on military solutions to geopolitical tensions.

Did Iran miscalculate? Iran's decision to directly attack Israel from its territory, moving away from its traditional reliance on proxy forces, signifies a bold but calculated escalation intended to overwhelm Israel's famed missile defenses and probe the resolve of its allies. Unfortunately for Tehran, the gamble did not pay off. The overwhelming failure of the missile barrage exposed significant weaknesses in Iran's military strategy, potentially undermining its position in regional power dynamics and inviting scrutiny over its tactical acumen.

Tehran’s direct assault from its soil shifts the narrative; this isn’t just proxy warfare anymore. The tight scope of the attack suggests a desire to avoid a full-scale war, but Israel might feel compelled to return the favor directly, possibly escalating tensions into new territories. Moreover, the economic repercussions were immediate, as seen in the rapid devaluation of its currency, underscoring the broader vulnerabilities within Iran's economy.

How will Israel respond? The feeing in Israel is that Iran crosssed a red line by attacking Israel directly that can’t go unanswered.. Israeli defense officials, including Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant and IDF Chief of Staff Gen. Herzi Halevi, have indicated the inevitability of a response. However, the form and timing are subjects of intense debate among Israel’s war cabinet. Options range from diplomatic outreach to form a global coalition against Iran to covert operations to more visible military strikes, each with distinct strategic implications and risks.

The Biden administration’s clear stance against escalation, coupled with similar sentiments from the G-7 and other Western and regional allies, places Israel in a precarious position. Any military action could potentially strain vital international relationships and undermine the broader strategic objectives of isolating Iran stability and security in the region.

Israel must weigh its response carefully; overly aggressive tactics could provoke further Iranian hostility without significantly degrading its capabilities. Iran’s proxies, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon, could open new fronts against Israel if it retaliates too forcefully. This scenario would complicate Israel's security situation and could drag the region into prolonged conflict, undermining peace efforts and regional stability. The challenge lies in crafting a response that is both proportionate and strategically calculated to maintain international support and deter future conflicts.

Are We Headed Toward a Regional War? The direct confrontation between Israel and Iran heightens the risk of a broader regional conflict, potentially involving various state and non-state actors, including the formidable Hezbollah. Such a scenario could destabilize the entire Middle East, impacting global security and economic stability. With Iran's nuclear ambitions unabated, the risk of escalation makes the regional security situation particularly precarious.

Iran, has communicated through its Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian and other officials that it does not seek an escalation to full-scale war. However, Tehran has warned of a strong and immediate response if Israel pursues further military actions. This could draw in the United States, which has vowed to defend Israel.

Did the Attack Give Netanyahu a Political Windfall? The timing of Iran's attack could not have been more opportune for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Amidst domestic political struggles and the ongoing conflict in Gaza, this external threat provided a moment of national unity and bolstered his leadership. The successful defense against Iran's assault has temporarily shifted the national conversation from internal controversies to external security challenges, potentially strengthening Netanyahu's political standing and providing a respite from domestic criticisms. By all accounts, this is a lifeline for Netanyahu, if he chooses to use it wisely.

While the Iranian threat momentarily diverts attention from Gaza, it does not alleviate the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the region. Israel's strategic focus on Iran may provide temporary political cover, but the international community continues to scrutinize its actions in Gaza closely. The balancing act between demonstrating military restraint and addressing the humanitarian issues in Gaza remains a significant challenge for Israel, complicating its internal political dynamics and international relations, especially the relationship with the United States.

What do Russia and China have to do with it? Iran’s stated goal—the destruction of Israel—is part of a larger narrative to challenge Western values and influence, supported vocally and violently by their proxies and sympathizers worldwide. The involvement of Russia and China, who have shown tacit support for Iran, adds a complex layer to this geopolitical puzzle. These global powers, often in opposition to American hegemony, might see this as an opportunity to advance their interests in the Middle East, potentially offering support or at least diplomatic cover to Iran. This realignment underscores the need for U.S. and European policymakers to reassess their strategies in the region, ensuring they not only counter immediate threats but also engage in proactive diplomacy to mitigate the influence of rival powers.

As the dust settles and the world waits to see Israel’s next move, one thing remains clear: Once locked in a shadow war, Israel and Iran are now in an open conflict where both are keen to flex, but neither desires the catastrophic costs of a full-blown war.

The challenge now? Managing to keep their finger off the trigger while holding a gun to each other's heads. For Israel, the task lies in leveraging its technological and military capabilities into sustainable strategies that enhance its security and leverage international support without escalating into open conflict. For Iran, the challenge is to recalibrate its approach in light of its failed gambit, seeking perhaps to mend fences through diplomatic channels rather than military might. The U.S., while advocating for restraint, might find its influence limited as regional dynamics evolve.