Israel-Iran War-Prospects and Prognosis
Disturbing visuals of plumes of smoke in Southern Beirut and the dark skies of Tel Aviv lit up by the Iranian ballistic missiles have added a sepulchral gloom to the darkening penumbra of the targeted areas.
Israel decimated Gaza, killing over 45000 people, and destroying two thirds of the building infrastructure while the Hezbollah responded through desultory attacks in Northern settlements of Israel close to Southern Lebanon, firing 20000 rockets in last eleven and a half months.
Military analysts and geopolitical experts had warned after October 7 attacks of an ultimate widening of the Gaza conflict to include Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iran.
The right-wing extremist Likud government of Netanyahu obliged the doomsday pundits by acting as if they had recently come out of the “Second Temple”, attacking Lebanon through conventional well as unconventional means.
Through as yet unclaimed booby trap attacks featuring civilian use pager devices, in flagrant disregard of international covenants like ICCPR and Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), and launch of air strikes followed by attempts at ground incursion in Southern Lebanon the war against Hezbollah was put on an escalatory spiral.
The death of Secretary General of Hezbollah i.e Hasan Nasrullah coming on the heels of assassination of Hamas political chief elicited a tough response from Iran in the shape of 200 ballistic missiles.
According to IDF spokesman Rear Admiral Halgari most of the missiles were intercepted by the Israeli air defence and the defensive coalition led by the USA.
The Iranian media quoted IRGC while claiming successful strikes against Nevatim, Hatzerim and Tel Nof air bases and Israeli tanks in Netzarim. Israeli sources acknowledge damage to administrative and non combat elements without acknowledging any damage to aircrafts.
Targets around Dimona nuclear base in Negev were hit but without any direct attack on Israeli nuclear facility. Iran has also sent a message to the USA asserting that its self restraint is over.
IDF leadership including the Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant was not happy about the war effort in Gaza due to nebulous military objectives and is equally ambivalent about the military objectives in Lebanon.
Whether the southern buffer zone is the tactical objective or the lines till Rivers Litani or Awali, is still unclear.
This has resulted in a tentative ground incursion by the Israel in Southern Lebanon eliciting an effective asymmetric response by Hezbollah forces.
There are some questions that beg an answer before one prognosticates the war scenarios between Iran and Israel.
What for instance is the Netanyahu’s political and military objective in escalating the war towards Lebanon? Would he be able to get the hostages released by occupying Lebanon? Is defeat of Hamas and Hezbollah an achievable objective?
The political objective of Netanyahu is to prolong the conflict long enough to shore up his sagging political popularity.
He knows he would lose the next elections if a ceasefire is effected right now. The ambiguity in military objectives flows from that selfish political objective.
What does Iran and the USA want?
Iran obviously wants to live down the humiliation of getting its proxies assassinated and humbled.
It should also have an aim of protecting its budding nuclear capability and to achieve that end it must place reliance upon veto wielding powers in UN Security Council like China and Russia.
The US objectives are limited to the support of Israel and a possible defanging of Iranian nuclear capability.
The GCC and OIC countries have emerged as an effete bulwark to Israeli aggression and it appears as if the Iran’s rivals in gulf might take a vicarious pleasure out of decimation of its nuclear programme and the proxy warfare capability in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza.
In this complex witches brew, the harrowing conflict scenarios between Israel (supported by its allies) and Iran, are being cooked.
Let us have a quick look on these scenarios.
In first scenario the Israel with US and other allies launches aerial attacks against Iran’s nuclear development sites at Natanz, Fordow, Khondab, Isfahan, and Bushehr.
In addition Iran’s ports and oil facilities could also be targeted. Israel would be supported by USA and Western allies in this operation and if it succeeds Iran might launch its remaining ballistic, cruise and hypersonic variants of missiles on Israel’s ports, nuclear facilities and the military bases.
This retaliation would elicit further air and missile strikes by Israeli coalition to the accompaniment of naval blockade and cyber attacks. The net result would be a weakened and nuclear defanged Iran, incapable of supporting its proxies.
The next step would feature decimation of Iranian proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Houthis.
In scenario two, an Israeli coalition air and missile attack against Iran’s port and oil installations besides the military targets like missile sites would be launched alongwith a full-fledged air, missile and ground attack against its proxies like Hezbollah and Houthis.
The strikes would elicit Iranian response, albeit a degraded one, resulting in little material damage to Israel.
The net result would feature a weakened Iran but still capable of achieving its nuclear ambitions with renewed resolve.
Its proxies would also be weakened but would still remain a force in being, capable of staging a resurgence under propitious conditions.
In scenario three the international diplomatic efforts and the anti-war sentiment in the world might compel Israel to accept ceasefire after giving a last-ditch drubbing to Hezbollah.
This outcome will result in the political defeat of Netanyahu and an intact Hezbollah-Hamas structure, with the fundamental drivers of the Palestinian conflict left unaddressed.
All the above scenarios, however, would result in a negative peace i.e absence of war but not the underlying causes of conflict. Let us now consider a frightening variant of scenario one.
The Israeli attacks and the resultant counter strikes by Iran might escalate the conflict to a nuclear stage where Israel mulls use of nukes against Iran.
Now Iran can probably offer a resistance in scenarios one and two despite heavy losses, but the nuclear option might force it to capitulate completely.
So, if nuclear option is the difference between total victory and defeat of Iran then it might hedge its bets by seeking either a nuclear capability or a nuclear umbrella by a reliable ally. In case of a nuclear umbrella Iran would remain undefeated and a force being capable of attaining its own nuclear capability in future.
It is in above context that role of Russia would have to be seen and evaluated.
Russian nuclear signalling in favour of Iran might add a dangerous destabilizing variable in the conflict equation, which needs to be viewed in the light of serious repercussions on regional as well as global peace.
Nuclear capability or an umbrella for Iran by an ally, however, would not result in a positive peace in Palestine.
The positive peace would only be achieved if the fundamental cause of the conflict i.e Israel’s defiance of two state solution in contravention of the relevant UN Resolutions is not addressed. Iran may or may not acquire a nuclear capability or an umbrella through an ally, but the conflict would remain simmering, till the world and the Israel’s allies do not see the benefits of removing the underlying cause of the conflict by giving Palestinians their legitimate rights in accordance with UN Resolutions supporting a “Two State” solution.