Historically Israel and Iran have had an adversarial relationship characterised by mutual animosity, ideological differences, geo-political rivalry, and distrust. More recent developments of confrontation and missile wars have raised the notch on the escalation scale. In recent times, both nations have launched massive missile and drone strikes on each other.
The latest escalation, an Israeli counter-strike on Iranian military targets on October 26, signals a dangerous phase in this ongoing conflict. With external players, including the United States, Russia, and regional Arab allies, navigating a delicate balancing act, the question arises whether the current animosity could spiral into an uncontrollable crisis or possibly be managed as a show of force to meet domestic pressures.
Genesis of the Israel-Iran Conflict
The genesis of the Israel-Iran animosity dates back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which changed Iran’s political orientation. Before the revolution, Israel and Iran maintained cordial relations, under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, with Iran being a key energy supplier to Israel.
However, the regime change and the establishment of the Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khomeini brought about a radical shift. The new regime adopted an irreconcilable policy toward Israel, referring to it as the “Little Satan” alongside the “Great Satan” United States. Such an anti-Zionist ideology fostered a policy to boost Iran’s support to the Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.
Iran to undermine Israel has used its leverage to counter its presence in the region with aggressive proxy play, while Israel has, in turn, sought to contain Iran through covert actions and alliances
Since then, Iran in an attempt to undermine Israel has used its leverage to counter its presence in the region with aggressive proxy play, while Israel has, in turn, sought to contain Iran through covert actions and alliances.
The rivalry between the two countries has progressively intensified, fuelled by Iran’s regional military expansion and Israel’s growing concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The most recent confrontations, involving state-of-the-art weaponry and direct attacks on each other’s territories, reflect a dangerous escalation of this decades-long rivalry.
Recent Escalations: Missile and Drone Wars
The latest chapter in this conflict began in early October 2024, when Iran launched an unprecedented ballistic missile attack on Israel. The scale and boldness of this assault underscored Iran’s willingness to engage Israel directly and signalled a significant escalation in its regional posture.
This barrage, involving approximately 200 missiles, marked the second direct attack by Iran on Israel in six months and represented a stark departure from the more common proxy-based warfare defined by Iran’s 3-H proxies: Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis.
In response, Israel launched a series of “precise strikes” targeting Iranian military infrastructure on October 26. According to Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) statements, the strikes were a direct response to the “continuous attacks from the regime in Iran against the State of Israel.”
Not targeting the nuclear and energy installation implied that the strikes were more strategic messaging under domestic pressures. The extent of the damage remains unclear, but explosions were reported in Tehran and the nearby city of Karaj.
The latest chapter in this conflict began in early October 2024, when Iran launched an unprecedented ballistic missile attack on Israel. The scale and boldness of this assault underscored Iran’s willingness to engage Israel directly and signalled a significant escalation in its regional posture
Iran’s state media initially downplayed the impact, attributing the blasts to its air defence system, though Israeli officials have underscored that their military actions will persist until Iran’s aggression is contained. The US has also acknowledged the strikes indicating its tacit acceptance and role.
This escalation highlights the growing shift from proxy warfare to confrontation. With both countries now engaging in missile and airstrikes, the risk of miscalculations has dramatically increased, raising concerns about a potentially devastating regional conflict.
Escalation or Domestic Posturing?
The latest Israeli missile counter-strike raises a critical question: Is this an escalation toward broader conflict, or are both Israel and Iran engaging in aggressive power play, to address domestic pressures and bolster leadership credibility?
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has faced domestic criticism for its handling of security threats and strained relationships with regional and international allies. In particular, Iran’s and Hezbollah’s recent missile attacks on Israel challenge Netanyahu’s leadership and the IDF’s credibility, prompting the need for a face-saving response.
Israel’s “precise strikes” on Iranian targets can be viewed as a calculated show of strength, aimed at reassuring the Israeli public and restoring credibility amid mounting pressure. By projecting military might, Netanyahu can also fortify Israel’s position on the international stage.
Iran not targeting the nuclear and energy installations in Israel implied that the strikes were more strategic messaging under domestic pressures
Iran’s ballistic missile duels can be partially interpreted as a response to internal pressures to Israel’s covert assassinations and missile attacks. The regime has faced significant domestic unrest in recent years, including protests over economic conditions and political repression.
By taking a bold stand against Israel, Iran’s leadership can shift public focus from domestic grievances to an external “enemy” and rally nationalist sentiment. This shift allows the Iranian government to appear unyielding, reinforcing its legitimacy at home.
However, Iran must balance these actions with the potential risks of retaliation, as excessive escalation could threaten its regional standing and economic stability.
Although some of these actions may be partly for domestic reasons, the most perilous role is that one of these retaliation attacks may inadvertently lead to an unintentional spiral into broader hostilities.
Both Israel and Iran are aware of the significant risks of escalation but are nonetheless compelled to demonstrate strength, creating a situation that could quickly veer out of control if missteps occur. It is neither in their interest nor that of the US and regional players.
The Role of External Players in the Conflict
The role of external players, particularly the United States, Russia, and regional powers, could significantly influence the trajectory of the Israel-Iran conflict, either containing or inflaming the situation.
As Israel’s most steadfast ally, the United States has publicly condemned Iran’s ballistic missile attack and voiced its support for Israel’s right to self-defence.
At the same time, Washington has exercised caution, refraining from direct involvement in Israel’s counterstrikes and warned against a strike against nuclear assets of Iran.
Arab States and regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are closely monitoring the Israel-Iran confrontation. Some of the Arab nations have in the recent past improved relations with Tel Aviv, motivated by a shared concern over Iran’s regional ambitions
US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken has urged restraint, emphasising that escalation must be avoided to prevent a wider conflict. Washington’s nuanced approach highlights its desire to support Israel while preventing a regional escalation that could threaten broader US interests in the Middle East.
Russia’s influence over both Iran and Syria grants it a significant role in the Israel-Iran conflict. Moscow has long been a backer of Iran and the Assad regime in Syria, viewing them as key allies in its efforts to counterbalance Western influence in the region.
As a result, Russia’s response to the recent escalation could prove pivotal. Russia’s interest in curbing US and Israeli influence might prompt it to support Iran more openly, especially if Washington were to increase its involvement.
Moscow’s balancing act could either help de-escalate or exacerbate the conflict, depending on its approach.
Arab States and regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are closely monitoring the Israel-Iran confrontation. Despite historical tensions with Israel, some of these countries have improved relations with Tel Aviv, motivated by a shared concern over Iran’s regional ambitions.
However, a full-scale Israel-Iran conflict could strain these alliances. Arab states are likely to pursue diplomatic channels to avert a broader crisis, although a regional war could push them to align more closely with Israel for security reasons.
Broader Implications for the Middle East
A full-fledged war could aggravate ongoing conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq where factions are backed by Iran. The hostile Sunni-Shia dynamics, particularly between Saudi Arabia (a Sunni-majority nation) and Iran (a Shia-majority country), could intensify, leading to sectarian violence in the region.
Iran’s proxies, along with Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq, and Houthi rebels in Yemen, can be mobilised against Israel and its allies. It would also give a breather to Hamas to intensify its activities.
The possible price escalation of oil will be disastrous for economies reliant on oil imports. The Middle East remains the most critical global oil supplier, and any disruption can choke the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which is a critical passage of the world’s oil supply. Thus a global economic catastrophe could result.
Iran’s ballistic missile developments and Israel’s cutting-edge air defence capabilities are the latest markers in a growing regional arms race. If neighbouring states perceive these advancements as existential threats, they may accelerate their militarisation efforts, adding to the region’s insecurity
A humanitarian crisis could also erupt, with millions being displaced. Countries like Turkey, Jordan, or even European nations may witness a new wave of refugees, adding to the already huge numbers from Syria and other regions.
Iran’s ballistic missile developments and Israel’s cutting-edge air defence capabilities are the latest markers in a growing regional arms race. If neighbouring states perceive these advancements as existential threats, they may accelerate their militarisation efforts, adding to the region’s insecurity. This arms buildup could destabilise the region further, leading to a cycle of mutual suspicion and military escalation.
Implications for India
West Asia is India’s extended neighbourhood and it has high stakes in the region’s stability and security. India imports 80% of its crude from the Gulf region and Mission ‘Viksit Bharat’ cannot afford any disruptions.
The disruption of energy and other supplies, and choking of trading routes could result in price escalation, and inflationary trends and stymie the Indian growth trajectory.
The welfare and safety of over 9.5 million Indians living and working mostly in the Gulf, who may also be caught in the crossfire, is also a concern.
Israel is a major military supplier for India while Iran 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 IMEC.
Instability in West Asia and the Middle East is not in India’s national interest. India must call for de-escalation and use its diplomatic acumen for de-escalation and peaceful resolution of the present crisis
This may have an adverse impact on such projects. Thus, instability in West Asia and the Middle East is not in India’s national interest. India must call for de-escalation and use its diplomatic acumen for de-escalation and peaceful resolution of the present crisis.
Overall, the recent escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict, marked by unprecedented strikes and counterstrikes, reflects a dangerous escalation matrix. The complexities of this potential conflict underscore the interconnectedness of regional and global stability.
An Iran-Israel war would have far-reaching global implications, destabilising the Middle East, triggering global economic and security crises, and impacting India’s economic growth and strategic pursuits.
It could also may result in geo-political alignments to be strengthened and make the world a more volatile and dangerous place. Diplomacy must take centre stage to limit the war in the Middle East.
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
