Since the Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip began on October 7, 2023, along with Israel's decision to target its adversaries in Lebanon and Syria, and its threats to the established rules of engagement along the Lebanese-Israeli border, a recurring question has emerged: Will the conflict between the Israeli army and the Palestinian factions stay confined to Gaza, or is there a possibility of it expanding into a wider regional conflict?
The urgency of this question heightened following an Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate building in Damascus on April 1, 2024. The attack resulted in the deaths of seven Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers, including General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a prominent commander of the Quds Force. Despite this, the Security Council did not issue a statement condemning the attack. The failure to support a Russian-drafted statement by the United States of America, Britain, and France was the reason for this.
In response, on April 13th, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard apprehended a ship connected to Israel near the Strait of Hormuz and brought it into Iranian territorial waters. Subsequently, Iran launched an air strike against Israel, using hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles. This direct Iranian attack has sparked widespread controversy regarding its implications, the expected Israeli response, and the possibility of a regional war breaking out.
Calculations of the Parties
The previous controversies in question aim to define the concept of a regional war and its implications. If a regional war is understood as a conflict with multiple fronts, then it is indeed occurring. Apart from the Palestinian front, there are other active fronts, such as the Lebanese Hezbollah on Israel's northern border, the Houthi group in Yemen conducting attacks on ships in the Red Sea, and the pro-Iranian military factions in Syria and Iraq. However, if a regional war is defined as the involvement of armies from other regional countries, similar to the 1967 war involving Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Israel, or the 1973 war involving Egypt, Syria, and Israel, then such a scenario has not yet unfolded. In this context, the probability of a regional war is minimal. This can be attributed to factors concerning the directly involved countries and the cautious stance of other nations regarding the potential escalation into a broader regional conflict.
If we consider the countries involved in the current war at the regional level, we have Israel and Iran, with the United States providing full support to Tel Aviv. The current Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, is the only party that sees its interest in expanding and prolonging the war. The rationale behind this stance can be attributed to the potential consequences of escalating the conflict. It is believed that an escalation could bolster American and Western backing for Israel, quell mounting criticism, and unite domestic public opinion in support of the current far-right administration. This administration faces internal rifts and widespread protests demanding its prompt resignation and early elections. In addition, a larger war involving other parties may distract global public opinion from what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank, which may facilitate Israel's mission to invade the city of Rafah. Indeed, the Iranian attack may have provided Israel with these advantages.
As for Iran and the United States, they are both not interested in expanding the war. While hostility towards and confrontation with Israel may gain popular support and momentum for Tehran, the Iranian leadership is aware of the dangers and repercussions of an open war with Israel. This is due to the existing military balance between the two countries, the extensive military support provided by the United States to Israel, and the Israeli intelligence and security infiltrations within Iran. Therefore, Tehran has always been cautious in controlling its political and military behavior to avoid pushing matters towards the "brink of the abyss."
Iran has thus shown a keen interest in maintaining communication with the United States through intermediaries such as the Sultanate of Oman and Switzerland, which was evident in Tehran's efforts to convey a message to Washington around the time of its strike against Israel. According to Iran's Foreign Minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, on April 14, Iran assured the United States that it does not seek to target American bases in the region or escalate the conflict. This assertion underscores Iran's strategic approach, showing that its actions are not haphazard or impulsive, but rather deliberate and disciplined. Iran's objective is to safeguard its interests while avoiding being pulled into an undesired war.
The same analysis applies to the United States, which is not inclined towards instigating a regional war, given its vested interest in the region. Such a conflict would jeopardize its economic and military stakes and place its allied Arab nations in a precarious position due to internal public opinion pressures.
In the event of a regional war, the United States would align itself with Israel, necessitating the deployment of aircraft carriers and warships to strategic locations such as the eastern sea, the Mediterranean, and the Red Sea. This would also entail direct military coordination for devising and executing plans, along with active participation in the combat operations.
This collaborative stance was exemplified when a joint Israeli-American air defense operations headquarters was established. This establishment played a pivotal role in intercepting and neutralizing numerous Iranian drones and missiles en route to Israel. In a gesture of gratitude for this cooperation, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, accompanied by the American ambassador to Tel Aviv, Jack Lew, inspected the headquarters the day after the Iranian attack.
The US administration is thus hesitant to witness events unfold in this manner, particularly during a pivotal presidential election year when Americans are deeply divided and the prospects of victory for both candidates, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, are evenly matched. Consequently, the White House swiftly announced that President Biden had advised Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu against retaliating to the Iranian strike. This advice was predicated on the successful destruction of 99% of Iranian drones and missiles, rendering their objectives unattained. This outcome can be viewed as a triumph for Israel.
If we look at the other countries in the region, they all urge Israel and Iran to show restraint and avoid any actions that could escalate the situation into a regional war. These countries have various motivations, including dealing with their own internal problems and crises, focusing on economic development and improving the living standards of their people, and recognizing that a regional war would result in losses for everyone and pose a threat to global peace and security. Their primary objective is to halt the conflict in Gaza, provide necessary aid to its people, and work towards the establishment of a Palestinian state within the borders prior to June 5, 1967, while also pursuing United Nations membership.
Turning Point
The recent attack originating from Iranian territory has presented a significant strategic challenge to Israel, showcasing Iran's capacity to penetrate deep into Israeli territory with its weaponry. Notably, the attack targeted both the Nevatim air base in southern Israel, the departure point for the planes involved in the raid on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, and the Negev air base. The Israeli army views this attack as a threat to its deterrence capability, a crucial component of its military doctrine. Iran has underscored the importance of this operation, proclaiming it as a pivotal moment in the Israeli-Iranian conflict. Moreover, Iran has announced the conclusion of the "strategic patience" phase it had previously adhered to, emphasizing its readiness to promptly retaliate to any Israeli aggression without hesitation.
The political and military leadership in Tel Aviv has acknowledged the gravity of the Iranian attack and Tehran's objective to redefine the rules of engagement. While the attack inflicted minimal material damage, it is highly anticipated that Israel will retaliate to assert its deterrent capability and uphold the perception of possessing one of the most formidable armies in the region, as reiterated by certain Israeli generals. The decision to carry out a retaliatory strike is likely imminent, although the specifics regarding its timing and scope remain uncertain. The prevailing consensus among most observers is that Israel's response will be measured yet significant, with a primary focus on targeting Iranian military installations.
It can be concluded that wars follow a life cycle, with a beginning and continuation on one hand, and a fading and withering on the other. The Iranian-Israeli confrontation, for instance, has not yet reached its end. An Israeli reaction is expected, which may be followed by Iranian retaliation, leading to a spiral of actions and reactions. As a result, countries in the region are seeking to distance themselves from participating in this conflict. The possibilities are numerous and varied, and the statements of officials from all countries, including Iran and Israel, confirm that they are not seeking the outbreak of a regional war. However, it is possible for events to unfold in a different manner. Will the outcome be a regional war or regional chaos?
