Israel attacks Iran

The new Israeli airstrikes against Iranian military facilities mark a new turn in the long-standing conflict between Israel and Iran, laying bare layers of political tension, strategic calculations, and potential consequences for the broader Middle East.

Well before dawn on Saturday morning, Israel confirmed that multiple precision strikes had hit key Iranian assets, including missile-manufacturing sites and anti-aircraft systems.

IDF added that these attacks were done based on intelligence analytics that showed a clear and imminent threat to Israeli air platforms flying over Iran. According to Israeli officials, the attack was in direct response to the Iranian missile strikes against Israel in April and October, thus positioning the attack within the context of Israel's right to self-defense against an ever-hostile adversary.

The Israeli strikes resulted in bringing down two Iranian soldiers, with reports of further damage still coming in. The Iranian government attempted to maintain its version of dignity by labeling the day "ordinary", according to Iran's state-run media. Analysts observed this as part of Iran's strategy to project their resilience in the face of the aggression by Israel, but at the same time it has shown how vulnerable Iran's air defense and military facilities are.

This incident has received attention worldwide, and the United States is particularly concerned about the consequences, given a potential risk of regional destabilization and an impact on global security accordingly.

The shadow war between Israel and Iran is colored by years of spasmodic escalations, covert operations, and strategic competition. Viewing Iran as its most dangerous regional foe, Israel has often taken actions to offset Iranian influence and dissuade its regional aspirations. Iran's support for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas has only deepened Israeli anxieties, given the reach and effectiveness of these groups in targeting Israeli interests.

For its part, Iran views Israel as an adversary in the Middle East, teaming up with the West to bring down its Islamic republic status. The efforts have come in many forms: cyber war, economic pressure, and diplomatic isolation. Multiple strikes recently by Israel have taken it out of the shadows, directly targeting key Iranian facilities for the first time in attacks and counter-attacks over Tehran's missile barrages on Israeli territory.

It was an incident against a backdrop of heightened tension between the two countries and, indeed, the whole Middle East. At the beginning of the month, the Iranian-backed Palestinian militant group Hamas launched a major assault on Israel, killing many Israelis and leading to a fierce military response in Gaza.

By this moment, tens of thousands of lives had already been taken, showing how deeply planted the hostility is in this region. But this development of escalation does not remain contained within Israel and Gaza; the reverberations span throughout neighboring nations, with various players in play from Hezbollah in Lebanon to the larger Arab and Western spheres. New Israeli airstrikes against Iran show that the intent is there to take on Tehran directly now, dropping the proxy battles that have characterized so much of the Israeli-Iranian rivalry in recent years.

The latest strikes hit close to 20 sites, including those critical to the key nodes of Iran's missile production capabilities and air defense infrastructure. Israel used more than 100 aircraft in three waves of attacks, including drones targeting missile manufacturing facilities and anti-aircraft systems that have great potential to pose a serious threat to Israeli forces operating in the region.

The intensity of the operation suggests a very calculated response against not just neutralizing the threats at hand but also to convey the message across the world: Israel has no hesitation in hitting on Iranian soil, if it feels so. The reports carried explosions across Tehran and its suburbs, further northwest into the Iranian provinces of Khuzestan and Ilam, indicative of the extent and precision in the Israeli offensive.

Indeed, the United States had closely been tracking and even shaping the scope of the Israeli action.

The details of the operation were briefed to the American officials, with the White House offering only conditional support for Israel's self-defense while underlining the need for restraint.

Concerned about wider reverberations from spiraling violence, President Joe Biden reportedly urged Israel to steer clear of targets in Iran that could prompt an unstoppable escalatory cycle: its nuclear facilities and oil reserves. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin held conversations with their Israeli counterparts amid a complex geopolitical dance. The U.S. position requires a fine balance, underscoring efforts to support its ally Israel without provoking an all-out regional conflict that could threaten global stability, disrupt oil supplies, and escalate into a wider confrontation involving U.S. forces stationed in the region.

Iran's response to the Israeli attacks has been one of measured defiance thus far.

Iranian state media and officials have downplayed the impact of the strike, and Mohammad Marandi, a political analyst with close ties to the Iranian government, said Tehran had expected a more robust attack.

There were echoes of strategic calculation in that pronouncement, of a need to underplay damage and show strength, to reassure both the Iranian public and its allies that Iran isn't being buckled. Yet, direct strikes at Iranian territory by Israel put Tehran in a precarious position. While Iran has an urgent need to reciprocate in view of its credibility before domestic audiences and regional proxies, there are significant risks associated with each of the options considered.

Immediate retaliation options available for Iran range from multifaceted to complicated. The most easy thing would be to continue to ratchet up the pressure on Israel through proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas that can reach Israel indirectly. It does have the added advantage of maintaining plausible deniability and giving Iran levers of pressure against Israel without running the risk of a direct conflict.

Alternatively, Iran could expedite its nuclear development as a longer-range threat element; this, too, would assuredly give rise to more sanctions, even to the point of preventive military strikes against its nuclear facilities by Israel or other powers.

A third alternative, much more provocative in nature, involves some sort of direct military response, such as missile attacks on Israeli targets.

This path is highly risky. Any Iranian military response now runs the risk of inviting an even more forceful Israeli response because Israeli air defenses have been significantly hardened through advanced U.S.-supplied missile defense systems. These might well reduce the impact of any Iranian counterstrike-and with it, Tehran's strategic leverage. The Israeli airstrikes weakened Iran's air defense capabilities, and thus, Iranian infrastructure could be quite vulnerable in the event of further attacks by Israel in response to some sort of direct retaliation.

These changes have very deep-reaching implications, with equally deep potential impacts not only on the Middle East itself but also on international stability as a whole. An independent Israel strike against Iranian territory, with no proxies involved, may be indicative of a new strategy in its "Iran counterbalancing".

If Iran strikes back, it can set off a chain reaction to a broader war-one that could also involve other regional players. This would result in the most undesired repercussions: destabilization of the Middle East with deleterious implications on the world economy due to disruptions of the strategic flows of oil, possibly drawing in U.S. forces.

This could be taken as a cue by regional players in the Levant to start hostilities: Hezbollah, Hamas, and even the Houthis in Yemen, against Israel directly or its proxy forces.

These past years, Iran and Israel have been carrying out their agendas through proxy groups and pulling off operations that, in the overall perspective, have kept direct confrontation at a level that was manageable. This latest escalation seems to reflect a growing impatience on both sides, with Israel now openly challenging Iran's military assets and Iran possibly considering a more robust response to reassert its standing among its allies.

Meanwhile, international diplomatic efforts have been mobilized in response to the events.

The U.S. has offered to lead a coalition with the aim of reducing hostilities, especially in an attempt to attain a ceasefire in both Lebanon and Gaza. But such initiatives would face overwhelming obstacles, for the entrenched positions of Iran and Israel pose formidable barriers to negotiation. Both the European Union and the United Nations are likely to continue diplomatic outreach, but their influence is liable to be limited within the entrenched antagonism and complex tectonics of power at play in the region.

This is a stand-off between Israel and Iran, bringing a moment of acute vulnerability into the Middle East, with axes converged on rivaled national interests, ideological differences, and historical enmity.

While Iran and Israel surge forward, each is positioned in a web of strategic choices, potential risks, and broader geopolitical ramifications. Its choices in the next few days will be critical in determining whether the region moves toward continued escalation or temporary de-escalation.

The prospect of an imminent end is thus grim, and a threat of future conflict hangs over an already explosive region, calling upon the international community to devise means of averting a larger, more catastrophic conflict.

(reuters, dpa, afp)