West Asia has always been on the edge, but the April 2024 events have set a new paradigm in this cauldron. The timing couldn’t be worse when global conflicts and geopolitical churn are creating unprecedented turbulence. It almost seems like an orchestrated grand play with the 2022 Russia-Ukraine, 2023 Hamas-Israel, and 2024 Israel–Iran conflicts. All major nations in direct or indirect conflict less China seem to be having a breather and smiling. Do these disruptions to peace and prosperity divert the focus from real threats and powerplay is another debatable conspiracy theory.
The direct missile exchange between Israel and Iran may be deemed a new normal in West Asia. The Iran-Pakistan and India-Pakistan cross-border strikes (Balakote/Jurba) have followed a similar pattern. It marks an era of calibrated precision direct targeting with impunity, visibility, and legitimacy. It is an inflection point in West Asia dynamics transiting from shadowboxing through proxies to direct strikes and strategic signalling. This has brought the region tethering to the brink of a potentially full-fledged war. More importantly, it is a strategic message to the United States that led the West to lose credibility of their warnings (“DON’T” versus “WILL”), adding to the dynamics of an election year. It brings forth the US limit of power and its retrenchment.
It marks an era of calibrated precision direct targeting with impunity, visibility, and legitimacy. It is an inflection point in West Asia dynamics transiting from shadowboxing through proxies to direct strikes and strategic signalling. This has brought the region tethering to the brink of a potentially full-fledged war
Iran has put the ownership of both initiation and escalation on Israel with a clear message of assured retribution. Israel on the other hand deflects attention from Gaza’s humanitarian global concern to draw support against Iran as a terror state. The world remains in a dissuasive mode due to its fallout on global energy and economic dynamics, which are already in the gloom. With emotions high in both countries’ hardliners, the future remains unpredictable, and a lull prevails before the possible storm.
What does Israel gain?
Israel’s deterrence has failed both against Iran and its proxies – the 3H (Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis). Iran’s ability to penetrate Israeli air space, even if in a small number of ballistic missiles, has exposed a chink in its armour. Few ballistic missiles have successfully hit the important Nevatim IAF base in the Negev. The Iranian missile attack changed the narrative of Israel’s adverse global image of the Gaza humanitarian crisis to Iran as an aggressor. A counterstrike would risk the switching back of global opinion. Escalation would leave Israel isolated even from countries currently backing it. Israel cannot sustain a two-front war without US support, which seems financially constrained with Ukraine at hand and elections around the corner. Thus, its options remain limited in scope.
The positive for Israel remains the demonstrated technology prowess in precision anti-drone, ABM systems and C5ISR, in successfully warding off a massive multisystem and multidirectional attack from Iran, whose missile and drone prowess has been globally acknowledged. Another positive for Israel is that the US-led Western countries including some moderate ones in West Asia like Jordon actively participating in Israel’s defence. The strategic scales are in favour of Israel, given Iran’s radical regime with a strong anti-West bias. Militarily Israel has got the better of the missile war both in interception and targeting. This is a victory of sorts for Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted, “We intercepted, we repelled, together we will win.”
What does Iran gain?
Until now, the proxy wars between the two nations existed through clandestine operations, killing high-profile personnel, especially Iranian nuclear scientists, has been well documented. However, an attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus was considered a violation of sovereignty and a violation of the Vienna Convention. Thus, Iran responded to Israeli missile strikes under UN Charter 51 establishing the legality of its response in self-defence. This gave it legitimacy, which cannot be questioned.
Israel’s deterrence has failed both against Iran and its proxies. Iran’s ability to penetrate Israeli air space, even if in a small number of ballistic missiles, has exposed a chink in its armour. However, the Iranian missile attack changed the narrative of Israel’s adverse global image of the Gaza humanitarian crisis to Iran as an aggressor
The nature of retaliation and its open signalling was indicative both politically and militarily that it did not want a regional war. It was like the Iranian response against the US killing of General Qassem Soleimani. The attack has also helped Iran identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli air defence system. Domestically it was a face-saving message of its military might against arch-enemy Israel. It was a strategic message to the US-led West of assured retribution to those who dare to provoke.
Iran has showcased both the will of the regime and the capabilities of its military should it be driven to the wall. It has now cleverly thrown the ball in Israel’s court for the next level of scalation dynamics. Iran is done for now having demonstrated its resolve to the public and strategic messaging to the globe to dare at their own peril. It considers this a victory.
How will Israel Respond?
Not responding is not an option for Israel. It’s the time, place and scope of response that remains debatable. Yet the situation of a possible two-front war and global support for a counter-counter strike has severe restraints. The scope has basically three options or a combination of them. A kinetic option of a direct strike at critical targets like nuclear facilities to message the world of destroying an existential threat to garner world support. Hit Hard; Hit where it Hurts and Hurt where it Lasts. The third option remains covert actions by Mossad or/and missile strikes in Syria, Lebanon or Iraq.
The Iranians have said the matter is ‘deemed concluded’. It however added, ‘Should the Israeli regime make another mistake, Iran’s response will be considerably more severe’ and involve the use of ‘never-before-used weaponry’. Iran’s authoritarian regime though radical has shown no inclination to further escalation with the prospect of war further weakening its sanction-crippled economy. This has cleverly put the onus on Israel.
Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus was considered a violation of sovereignty and a violation of the Vienna Convention. Thus, Iran responded to Israeli missile strikes under UN Charter 51 establishing the legality of its response in self-defence. This gave it legitimacy, which cannot be questioned
The world has little appetite for a full-fledged war nor do the two warring sides have war stamina to sustain without external support. Thus, risking a defeat through uncontrolled retribution and escalation is also not an option. Israel can bask in the glory of foiled Iranian strikes and switch of favourable world opinion. Yet under pressure from hardliners within, Israel will need to weigh its options and calibrate its response with a long-term perspective and war against Hamas yet not achieved its objective. Hamas front must not and cannot be diluted. Simultaneously to support Israel the West and G7 could impose crippling sanctions on Iran as a show of solidarity.
The initial indications of a potential thaw emerge as both Iran and Israel have reopened their airspaces to commercial flights. Whether this signifies a thaw or merely a strategic pause before the next round is anybody’s guess.
The World at Large
The US has been a pillar of support to Israel, but it has little appetite to be embroiled in another war in West Asia with Ukraine, the Middle East and the domestic political situation at hand. With the Presidential elections around the corner and its economy constrained, US President Joe Biden could lose its voters if the US was to dirty its hands in another conflict. Yet for Iran, the silver lining is that the US Congress can no longer block any arms transfer to Israel.
China is sitting pretty, exhausting US resources and attention away from the Indo-Pacific with Ukraine and Israel fronts active. According to The Art of War by Sun Tzu, the first principle is to “win all without fighting”. This is what China is doing. While it looks at a new axis of power with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, overtly it professes de-escalation. A turmoil in West Asia to destabilise the US-brokered Abraham Accord, Saudi Arabia-Iran détente, and global integration initiatives like IMEEC would best suit China.
Russia sees itself as a regional security guarantor in the Middle East with Syria and Libya on the boil. Iran forms a major influencer in its long-term objectives in the Middle East. Yet Russia’s preoccupation with its invasion of Ukraine suggests that it cannot currently act on another front or divert its dwindling resources. Thus, Russia’s influence in the Middle East may be waning. The Russia-Iran relationship has deepened both in the economic and military spheres with mutual benefit and commonality of core anti-US interests. Both have been subjected to West-led sanctions and mutually have been able to offset their impact partially. Thus, while Russia has become closer to Iran and its proxies, escalation of conflict is not in its interest nor does it have the capacity to influence it presently.
The EU, Britain, France, Mexico, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands have condemned Iran’s attack. The G7 in a joint statement mentioned, “We demand that Iran and its proxies cease their attacks.” Iran may face additional sanctions and scrutiny of its covert actions while Israel will be put under pressure not to escalate the situation.
The UNSC meeting again showed its lack of teeth and effectiveness beyond a passive call to de-escalation. Russia and China on one side and France, the UK, and the US on the other, no resolution is possible. The UN Secretary-General just made a feeble statement saying, “Neither the world nor the region can afford another war”
The legacy UNSC meeting again showed its lack of teeth and effectiveness beyond a passive call to de-escalation. Russia and China on one side and France, the UK, and the US on the other, no resolution is possible. Iran defended its actions as legitimate under the UN charter, while the West and Israel accused it of expanding the conflict. The UN Secretary-General just made a feeble statement saying, “Neither the world nor the region can afford another war.”
An escalation to the conflict can result in the Strait of Hormuz being closed and crude oil prices shooting up much beyond US $100 per barrel sending global shockwaves with disastrous impact on the economy. Thus globally it’s a de-escalation call.
India’s Stand and Implications
West Asia is India’s extended neighbourhood and has high stakes in the region’s stability and security. The biggest concern is the threat of disruption of energy and other supplies, trading routes, and most immediately, the welfare and safety of over 9.5 million Indians living and working mostly in the Gulf who may be caught in the crossfire.
Israel is a major military supplier for India while Iran is a major trade, economic and energy partner. India has connectivity projects both through Iran into Afghanistan and CAR as well as with Israel in terms of the IMMEC. India imports 80% of its crude from the Gulf region and cannot afford disruptions.
Thus, instability in West Asia and the Middle East is not in India’s national interest. India has called for de-escalation and exercise of restraint without a blame game. India is also most well placed as the voice of Global South to defuse the situation. External Affairs Minister Dr Jaishankar spoke to both Israel and Iran to return to the path of diplomacy. Thus, India joins the global chorus of de-escalation and diplomacy to resolve the crisis.
-The author is a PVSM, AVSM, VSM has had an illustrious career spanning nearly four decades. A distinguished Armoured Corps officer, he has served in various prestigious staff and command appointments including Commander Independent Armoured Brigade, ADG PP, GOC Armoured Division and GOC Strike 1. The officer retired as DG Mechanised Forces in December 2017 during which he was the architect to initiate process for reintroduction of Light Tank and Chairman on the study on C5ISR for Indian Army. Subsequently he was Consultant MoD/OFB from 2018 to 2020. The Officer is a reputed defence analyst, a motivational speaker and prolific writer on matters of military, defence technology and national security.The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily carry the views of Raksha Anirveda
The author, a PVSM, AVSM, VSM has had an illustrious career spanning nearly four decades. A distinguished Armoured Corps officer, he has served in various prestigious staff and command appointments including Commander Independent Armoured Brigade, ADG PP, GOC Armoured Division and GOC Strike 1. The officer retired as DG Mechanised Forces in December 2017 during which he was the architect to initiate process for reintroduction of Light Tank and Chairman on the study on C5ISR for Indian Army. Subsequently he was Consultant MoD/OFB from 2018 to 2020. He is also a reputed defence analyst, a motivational speaker and prolific writer on matters of military, defence technology and national security. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily carry the views of Raksha Anirveda
