Iran’s promised retaliation to the Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus came in the early hours on the morning of April,13 2024. Swarms of attack drones and cruise and ballistic missiles were deployed in an unprecedented direct attack from Iran. Most of the drones and missiles were neutralised by Israel and its allies. However, a few ballistic missiles penetrated Israel’s formidable Iron Dome and struck the Nevatim and Ramon airbase in the southern Negev desert and a radar station in the north. Damage to infrastructure was minimal and no deaths were reported.
The situation in the Middle East remained tense. The ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict has raged for over six months in Gaza and the West Bank. The leadership of both Israel and Hamas face growing opposition from their own people, but both have persisted with the conflict. Attempts by the international community to get the two sides to de-escalate and seek peace have borne no fruit. There is fresh concern about a potential Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites or high-value targets. The same is true of cyberattacks. Any attack carries the potential for further turmoil and instability.
Crossing the Rubicon
The direct strikes between Israel and Iran bring a new dimension to conflict in the region. Although the two have for long been in confrontation and have waged attacks on each other through militia in foreign lands or covert operations, the current escalation has wider ramifications.
The deliberate airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus was audacious in terms of international and diplomatic conventions. The Iranian Supreme Leader called it a direct attack on Iran and declared that Israel would be punished. The attack became a public and emotive issue, not just in Iran, but in the Arab world, and the Iranians used it as casus belli for retaliation.
While the Iranian response promised retaliation, they signalled to the US that American assets could be kept out of harm’s way. The direct attack was overwhelming in sheer volume and tested the capability of Israel’s air defence systems, but its prior announcement also gave Israel and its allies time to take countermeasures. Iran indicated it has achieved its objectives. However, both attacks crossed the Rubicon.
Of Allies and brothers
If Israel’s objective was to widen the conflict, it had partial success as it provoked Iran’s direct retaliation and also obtained the support of its allies and neighbours to engage in neutralising the Iranian attack. However, allies stressed they did not support any subsequent Israeli response and noted they would not join such a venture.
The US declared victory as the Iranian attack was effectively repulsed and damage was minimal. Most Western countries condemned the Iranian attack and called for de-escalation. At the UN Security Council, where Israel and Iran sparred over the incident, there was little appetite for expanding the conflict.
Iran’s supporters in the region voiced support and Iran-supported militia in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen launched rocket and drone attacks on Israel. Arab countries were cautious as they did not wish for escalation. But they do not want Iran to become the representative of sentiments on the Arab street either. Iran signalled that its exercise has been concluded. However, an Israeli counterattack could complicate the issue, especially as Iran’s deterrence capability may be less and damages could lead to an escalation of conflict.
The Nuclear Issue
The long history of animosity and confrontation between the sides has now erupted in direct attacks. Israel is believed to be nuclear-capable and Iran’s desired programmes for nuclear capability have been in the spotlight. A nuclear flashpoint needs to be avoided.
Certain scholars believe that the success of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be uncertain, but the risks would be enormous. They note that Iran may accelerate preparations for realising its nuclear ambitions. However, it has also been argued that the countervailing power that Iran may possess in anticipation of acquiring nuclear capability may exceed what it may gain by actually attaining the status.
Israel-Palestine conflict continues
The focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict did not recede in the run-up to the anticipated Iranian retaliation.
The Mossad-Hamas channel — brokered by Egypt — to negotiate a ceasefire and release of hostages saw limited progress in the sessions last week. Neither Israel nor Hamas seemed keen to push hard enough for an end to their war.
For Iran, a retaliation for Israel’s strike in Damascus was probably a difficult call to make. The IRGC suffering losses at the highest level would be detrimental for a force that works under the direct command of the Ayatollah. A similar response was also seen in 2020, when the US assassinated IRGC’s elite commander of the Quds Force, Qassim Soleimani, and a barrage of Iranian missiles targeted US facilities in Iraq. The dynamics then were different, with the US being a foreign power. But the dynamics for Israel are anchored by geographic realities.
Israel’s response and chase for strategic one-upmanship is a long and drawn-out game. If Iranian nuclear facilities are targeted, Tehran may double down, and race towards nuclear weaponisation. The fears of war in Gaza escalating to a regional one seem to be coming true, disregarding US influence. For the moment, more than Israel versus Iran, as the latter attempts to downplay the incidents, it may well be down to a battle of egos between Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei. An expanded regional war will have global, long-term ramifications.
Regional Instability and India
Conflict does not augur well for regional peace, stability, economic growth and development. Israel, as a major economic and technological power, stands to lose much in a prolonged war. Many Arab countries, who sought a brighter future in closer cooperation with Israel, also wish to see the end of the conflict.
Iran’s economy has been under stress for some time now and it can hardly afford a full-fledged war. Conflict in the region also affects others across the world, not merely in terms of increased oil prices, but also the weakening of supply chains.
For India, the region constitutes our extended neighbourhood. Stability is crucial for cooperation and development. Turmoil affects the security of the large Indian diaspora based in the Gulf region; there is the additional risk of piracy and hostage-taking. The Global South and global governance would also be impacted by continuing instability in the Middle East. It is imperative that the international community lean upon all parties such that they refrain from further violence and seek solutions through diplomatic negotiations.
The two-state solution is the only way ahead for long-term security, peace and stability. It is not an easy goal, but both sides are familiar with the challenges and opportunities. The cycle of violence must end and the rights and aspirations of the people must be met. India’s civilisational contacts and credentials make her an ideal friend to all in the region.
Comments