Israel and Iran: The Politics of War

Iran has attacked Israel using ballistic missiles. Israel has vowed a powerful retaliation in response. As the Middle East teeters on the brink of a regional conflict that would have devastating consequences globally, hopes for averting a war rest on striking a delicate balance between the imperatives surrounding an embattled Israeli prime minister, a presidential election race in the US that is neck-and-neck and a regional geopolitical balance of power where perceptions of deterrence capability often outweigh reality.

On Oct. 1, Iran launched a massive ballistic missile attack on Israel. According to a statement put out by the Iranian government, this attack was in retaliation for Israeli attacks in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran that killed thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, as well as several senior members of the Hamas and Hezbollah organizations, including the long-time head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah. Israeli and US government sources claim that the Iranian attack, which involved between 180 and 200 missiles, was largely defeated by the combined US and Israeli missile defense shield over Israel and that the Iranian missiles that managed to break through landed in empty spaces, causing minimal casualties and damage. However, the video evidence from the ground inside Israel during the attack clearly shows scores of missiles impacting targeted installations in rapid succession.

Political Sensitivities

The disparity between the official Israeli and US narratives and ground truth reflects the political sensitivity surrounding the Iranian attack. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is in the political fight of his life — one that will define his legacy as an Israeli leader and, if handled wrong, could see him removed from office and subject to criminal prosecution. As such, Netanyahu’s actions are in large part defined by the impact they will have on the continued viability of his right-wing ruling coalition. Hardliners within this coalition are pressuring Netanyahu to embrace policies that seek to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah — which are classified by Israel and its supporters in the US and Europe as terrorist organizations — as well as Iran, Israel’s regional adversary that serves as the principal sponsor of both Hamas and Hezbollah.

The urgency with which Netanyahu’s domestic political allies have been pushing for decisive engagement was magnified following the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and Hezbollah’s decision the next day to support Hamas by attacking Israeli positions in the disputed Shebaa Farms territory nestled in the confluence of the Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian borders. Netanyahu’s tight governing margins were already starting to fray as hundreds of thousands of Israelis took to the streets in protest, enraged over the prime minister’s efforts to change the Basic Law of Israel so that the Israeli judiciary would be subordinated to the will of the Knesset (parliament), thereby preventing any prosecution of the prime minister on credible allegations of corruption. The situation in Israel was so tense in the days and weeks leading up to the events of Oct. 7 that the Israeli president warned of the danger of civil war.

Netanyahu’s political fortunes were significantly worsened by the Oct. 7 attack, which entered the history books as the single worst day in the history of Israel in terms of loss of life. The Netanyahu government was heavily criticized for its lack of preparedness and for the intelligence failure manifested by the attack. Likewise, Netanyahu and his leadership were chastised for their response to the Hamas attack, both in terms of the violence inflicted on Israeli civilians by the Israeli defense forces and the capture by Hamas of several hundred Israeli hostages.

Escalation Management

In the year since the Hamas attack, the Netanyahu government has weathered one political storm after another. The fact that Netanyahu serves as the overseer of Israel’s war cabinet helps protect him from being removed from office. As such, to remain politically viable, Netanyahu has been forced to reject diplomacy that could have led to a cessation of hostilities while expanding the scope and scale of the conflicts Israel is engaged in to preserve his status as a wartime leader. As a result, the Israeli leader has been engaged in a dangerous game of escalation management, one that has Israel pushing the envelope when it comes to expanding the conflict from a series of localized crises to a full-scale regional war.

Iran has played a critical behind-the-scenes role in facilitating the efforts of the so-called “Axis of Resistance,” comprised of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Ansarullah (Houthi) movement in Yemen and pro-Iranian militias operating in Syria and Iraq. The sustainability of Hamas, the lethality of Hezbollah and the ability of the Houthis to effectively blockade Israel’s Red Sea port of Eilat are all testaments to the effectiveness of Iran as a sponsor and mentor. But Iran has, from the start of the post-Oct. 7 conflict, assiduously avoided becoming directly involved in the fighting.

There have been two exceptions. The first was in April this year, when Iran launched a combined drone, cruise missile and ballistic missile attack in retaliation for Israel’s bombing of an Iranian diplomatic facility in Damascus, Syria. The Iranian response, code-named Operation True Promise, was intended to reestablish a sense of deterrence that the brazenness of the Israeli attacks suggested was no longer present. The second exception was this week’s attack — Operation True Promise 2 — which sought to rebalance regional deterrence following the Israeli assassination of Nasrallah and other senior Hamas and Hezbollah leaders.

Operation True Promise 2 was a step up the escalation ladder for Iran, which employed weapons systems and operating tactics designed to defeat Israeli and US anti-missile defenses that had been deployed in and around Israel in anticipation of such an attack. While the outcome of the attack appears to have reinforced the point that Iran was making — simply put, that no location in Israel was safe from being struck by Iranian missiles, as had been the case in April — Iran appears to have telegraphed its intent to attack by exposing its missile forces to US reconnaissance satellites, with Washington announcing that it had detected Iranian preparations to launch missiles two hours before the attack, allowing Israel time to evacuate high-value equipment (such as advanced F-35 fighters) and sequester personnel in protective shelters.

Election Pressures

The question now is what Israel will do in retaliation. Regardless of the public spin Israeli and US officials are disseminating regarding the efficacy of the Iranian attack, the reality is that Iran has sent Israel and its allies a message that, if left unanswered, swings the deterrence dominance pendulum back in favor of Iran. This is politically untenable for Netanyahu. However, the Israeli prime minister is constrained in his response options by domestic political realities emanating from the US. There, the Biden administration is facing a perfect storm of economic disasters — a hurricane and a dock workers strike — that threaten to detrimentally impact the US economy at a critical point in the national election cycle.

If Israel were to strike critical Iranian infrastructure, whether related to Iran’s nuclear program or oil and gas production, Iran would be certain to retaliate in a manner that would not only precipitate a larger regional conflict but also threaten the energy security of the world. Israel cannot be seen as cutting off the hand that feeds it, which is why it is highly likely that the US will be closely involved in any decision by Israel to retaliate. Washington will seek a proportionate response, with the most likely targets military industrial facilities related to ballistic missile production. Climbing the escalation ladder is a dangerous game, one which, if done properly, could engender a modicum of stability in an otherwise chaotic situation. One miscalculation, however, could lead to a regional war with devastating consequences, regionally and globally.

https://www.energyintel.com/00000192-5350-d9e0-a5df-77de71bc0000