NEW DELHI: India’s look-west policy might have to fathom the new emerging challenges with alacrity.
Iran has struck in response to Israel’s strike on its consulate in Syria. Normally, Iran is not known to undertake direct military strikes across the Middle East. However, this retaliatory strike against Israel sans its proxies marks a shift in its strategy. It is unclear if Iran did use its proxies or not, but the fact that the Israeli deterrence broke down for a second time in last six months is important. The Iranian strikes might not end up here, as these strikes provide Israel with a strong motive to retaliate and re-establish its deterrence in the Middle East.
As widely reported, Iran targeted multiple military sites across Israel. They used a mix of suicide drones, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. These attacks were launched from locations in Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Syria. Israel responded with its fighter aircraft and activated their ultra-modern air defence network to thwart these attacks. The US Air Force responded with its regional assets to intercept the attacks on Israel. Jordan also responded by targeting Iranian missiles and drones flying over its territory.
Apparently, all 185 Kamikaze suicide drones launched by Iran were shot down. Likewise, all 36 cruise missiles fired were brought down. Only seven out of the 110 ballistic missiles fired by Iran were able to pierce through the multi-layered air defence cover. The missiles that went through hit the Israeli air base at Nevatim, but there was no significant damage. In retaliation, Israel targeted a Hezbollah weapons manufacturing facility in Lebanon. Ever since, both sides have been maintaining a cautious stance waiting for either side to miscalculate and then act.
STRATEGIC OR SYMBOLIC?
From the retaliatory strikes, it is apparent that Iran has mastered the art of orchestrating sub-threshold attacks. As Amal Saad, a Middle East scholar at Cardiff University, explains, the Iranian attacks were carefully calibrated to beat Israel’s much vaunted deterrence, yet avoiding an uncontrolled escalation. In a sense, the Iranian selection of targets was not only strategic but symbolic too, and that the retaliatory strikes were potent enough to demonstrate its intent and capability.
The Iranian strikes raise some important questions. First, why this sudden shift in Iran’s regional strategy, in the way the Iranians have attacked Israel. Striking through its proxies have always been a norm to avoid any direct confrontation. Second, what could have prompted the Iranians to undertake this rather calibrated strike at Israel. The media is abuzz with stories. And third, was it a retaliatory strike to caution Israel about its misconduct in Damascus, or was it a strike to reassert its reputation in the region and signal to all its foes and allies of its military prowess and resolve? Iranian objectives remain unclear as of now.
Next, why Israel attacked the Iranian consulate also raises a few intriguing questions. Was it an attempt to teach Iran a lesson to halt its support to its proxies in Gaza? Was the Israeli strike undertaken with an ulterior motive of seeking a retribution to justify its eventual targeting of Iran’s nuclear facilities and its leadership? Or, was it simply a diversionary tactic to launch its final offensive into Rafa and draw a closure on the war? Experts have been discussing these possibilities endlessly, but to no reasonable avail.
ESCALATORY SPIRAL
From a regional perspective, the question is would this war over Gaza expand vertically and horizontally into a wider war? Or, would it be contained, as both sides might have strong strategic compulsions not to escalate the war? The last show of force is where Iran might like to draw the line, as they run the risk of inviting American wrath. Though it gives Israel the incentive to raise the bar, Israel would understand that these shadow wars have the potential of spinning out of control. Also, the risk of miscalculation increases with every passing hour and day. Hezbollah’s April 17 attack on an IDF military reconnaissance unit in response to Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah fighters is indicative of the expansionary nature of this conflict.
For Israel also, any more delay in acquiescing the consent of its Western allies to join the fray would also be a fair indication that the war might not expand. The US has already affirmed that it will not partake in any retaliatory action against Iran. Rest of the West might also follow suit. However, that should not inhibit US build-up of additional troops and platforms. This would continue to rattle the Iranians, in turn deepen their suspicion. This would also incentivise them to galvanise its long-standing proxies in the region.
This turn of events will surely please Iran’s allies and partners. It creates a distraction for the West and draws its attention away from Ukraine. China too would draw comfort from these attacks, in light of growing US assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific. What happens next between Israel and Iran would have an impact in Ukraine and the Pacific, and any US strategy in the Middle East will have to take this into consideration.
ISRAEL’S DILEMMA
How does Israel now retaliate without risking a wider escalation? Israel has several options for how it might respond. First, Israel might not elect to respond to Iran’s attack. This would possibly de-escalate the situation, but risks setting a new norm, where Iran can test Israel’s next threshold for tolerance without retaliation. Israel not retaliating would please many regional countries, although they might also have to contemplate if Iran might not be willing to attack them.
Second, Israel chooses to respond with a proportionate attack. Israel has the capacity to do so, including decapitation of high-value political targets. This might be accompanied by cyber-attacks. Israel could even conduct attacks against Iranian non-military targets across the region.
Third, Israel might like to disregard any advice from its allies and decide to deliver a massive blow to Iran to re-establish its deterrence. For instance, attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities while simultaneously targeting military and political targets in Iran. This would be a significant escalation of the Iran-Israel conflict.
All of these are possible in days ahead. For Israel, opening a new front with Iran risks diverting its resources from more immediate threats in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon. Moreover, Israel’s powerful military would face a major challenge to prosecute a long duration military campaign with Iran, physically displaced by more than a thousand kilometres.
UNCERTAINTY AHEAD
For now, the immediate future of the Iran-Israel conflict remains uncertain. We await the next move by Israel. While Israeli forces are modern and formidable, their ability to undertake decisive operations against Iran are uncertain. Israel would require substantial support from its allies, in terms of long-range missiles, air defence systems and aerial refuelling. The Israeli war cabinet might soon take a call on their options ahead, the reverberations of which would be felt well beyond the Middle East.
A few aspects are important to India. First, it is to secure the release of seventeen crew members on board the hijacked ship, MSC Aries. Second, India has a sizeable number of its citizens in the Middle East, who have to be kept out of harm’s way if the conflict spirals out of control. Third, recurring instability along India’s western seaboard impacts our energy needs and littoral security. Fourth, a wider escalation would impact our foreign policy interests to engage with Gulf countries, as also to build future trade connectivities through the Middle East. And fifth, with Israel’s military sucked into a high-intensity war with Iran, our own military dependencies on Israel might need a serious rethought. Overall, India’s look-west policy might have to fathom these new challenges with alacrity.
The danger now is that the shadow war between the two countries is out in the open, and it may be hard to keep a lid on the slugfest that follows.
Late Thursday night, Israel struck back at a military base in Iran. While the micro-drone strikes seem rather limited and an underwhelming retaliatory response, the escalatory slide is surely kicking up for the international community to take serious note and intervene.
Harinder Singh, a retired Lt General, is the former DGMI.