ARAB AND WORLD
Thu 03 Oct 2024 9:06 am - Jerusalem Time
Israel's options: respond and bring about a greater response, or swallow the blow and lose prestige?
Dr. Qusay Hamed: Israel will respond without slipping into a comprehensive war after Iran shattered its image of victory by assassinating Hezbollah leaders
Dr. Abdul Majeed Suwailem: Israel has two options: either respond and bear the consequences, or swallow the Iranian strike and deal with its repercussions internally.
Dr. Hussein Al-Deek: Iran wanted to launch a limited strike aimed at saving face without causing things to get out of control
Dr. Saad Nimr: Iran has chosen to launch a “painful blow” instead of a major escalation at this stage, and the Israeli response will be strong and comprehensive
Dr. Raed Abu Badawiya: Things could deteriorate if Israel strikes a severe blow to Iran and there is a possibility of sliding into an open regional war
Israel is facing a real dilemma and a critical moment in determining the form and size of the response to the recent Iranian strike, as the level of tension in the region has risen several degrees after this unprecedented Iranian attack, as Israel threatened and vowed a harsh response to it, but Iran preempted the matter and immediately after its attack by threatening that its response would be more painful if Israel dared to respond to it in any way.
In separate interviews with Al-Arabiya, writers, political analysts and university professors said that Iran was able to break the image of Israel as a victor that it had painted during its recent operations against Hezbollah and Hamas, which made everyone wonder about the nature of the expected Israeli response and whether it would lead to a broad confrontation.
These analysts and writers expressed their belief that Israel is considering a qualitative military response against strategic Iranian targets, but without causing a comprehensive war that might harm it, and which the United States of America does not want, because any Israeli excess in the response might put the region before very dangerous possibilities and consequences.
Iran does not want to lose Hezbollah to avoid direct confrontation
Dr. Qusay Hamed, Professor of Political Science at Al-Quds Open University, said: Iran sensed a major threat surrounding it, especially after the targeting of the military and political leaders of the Lebanese Hezbollah, and its exposure to the risk of disintegration as a result of those strikes.
Hamed pointed out that the series of assassinations that Hezbollah was subjected to raised doubts about the party's ability to recover from them and reorganize its ranks to confront the challenges it faces.
Hamed believes that Iran has realized the extent of the danger threatening Hezbollah, especially since Israel is moving forward to neutralize the party so that it will not be an existential threat to it and its security, and that Israeli intentions indicate that it is moving towards directing harsh blows to it, similar to those that happened to the Hamas movement.
Hamed stressed that Iran, which considers Hezbollah one of its most important strategic tools in the axis of resistance, has begun to realize the danger of the increasing threats facing the party, and with the exception of the Hamas movement, which was subjected to heavy blows after October 7, it does not have allies capable of forming an effective pressure tool on Israel other than Hezbollah, while the rest of the forces of the axis of resistance are considered less effective supporting tools for it.
Hamed stressed that Hezbollah represents Iran's strategic depth and its first line of defense against Israel, which explains Iran's ongoing attempts to save the party from disintegration and prevent it from being exposed to harsher Israeli strikes.
Hamed believes that the potential loss of Hezbollah as a major force in the confrontation with Israel will leave Iran with two options: either direct confrontation with Israel, or submission to the demands of the international community and negotiation over its nuclear file and relations with Israel.
A strategic step to prevent matters from getting worse.
According to Hamed, Iran does not want to lose Hezbollah, because that would open the door to a direct confrontation between Iran and Israel, and thus it would be forced to build a new organization the size of Hezbollah, which would take a long time, and may not be possible in Lebanon, given the political changes expected if the party weakens.
Hamed said that the recent Iranian strike was not a personal revenge against leaders such as Ismail Haniyeh or Hassan Nasrallah, but rather came as a strategic step aimed at preventing matters from escalating, especially in light of the possibility that the next confrontation - after Hezbollah and Hamas - will be a direct confrontation between Israel and Iran, noting that Iran's strategy relies on its agents to fight Israel, to avoid engaging in a direct confrontation that it may not currently want.
Hamed stressed that Iran, through its recent strike, sent several messages, the most important of which was its defense of Hezbollah, pressure for international intervention to prevent Israeli escalation, and its threat to change its strategy and resort to war if it was forced to do so.
Israel will definitely respond to the Iranian strike
Regarding Israel, Hamed believes that it will inevitably respond to the Iranian strike, as Iran, with its strike on Tuesday evening, was able to break the image of Israel as victorious that it had painted after targeting Hezbollah, what was happening in Gaza, and the ground incursion into Lebanon.
Hamed believes that Iran was able, through its strike, to put all Israelis in shelters, and this means that Israel is open to a new confrontation with Iran, and that Iran will not remain in the circle of silence, threats, or lower-level strikes on Israel.
Hamed pointed out that the Israeli response may target the Iranian depth, without leading to the outbreak of a regional war, but it may be on important strategic and military sites.
Hamed expected that Israel might resort to a qualitative response similar to the explosions of communications devices that occurred with Hezbollah, and this could lead to significant damage to the Iranian infrastructure.
However, Hamed does not believe that the Israeli response will develop into a comprehensive war, especially since Israel has not yet been able to convince the international community to go to war, which he believes is not obligated to wage war on behalf of Israel, noting that Israel wants the United States to form an international coalition against Iran that would spare Israel the need for direct confrontation.
Any Israeli response will be met with a more severe and destructive Iranian response.
For his part, political analyst Dr. Abdul Majeed Suwailem said: “It is certain that Israel will respond to the latest Iranian strike, as not responding practically means that Israel has been deterred, which is something it cannot accept at all.”
"At the moment, Israel is consulting with the United States about the nature of the possible response, due to several main factors, most notably Iran's advance warning that any Israeli response will be met with a more severe and destructive Iranian response, which will put Israel in a complex position that may include targeting strategic infrastructure," Suwailem added.
He believes that entering into a comprehensive confrontation may not be in Israel's interest, for several reasons, the most important of which is that Iran has the ability to bear much greater losses than Israel, given the diversity and distribution of its facilities and infrastructure compared to Israel's limited area. Israel will also be in a difficult position if a large-scale confrontation breaks out, unless it resorts to using unconventional weapons, which may require greater American support.
On the other hand, Suwailem believes that the US support for Israel at this sensitive time coincides with the approach of the US presidential elections, which may make it difficult for Washington to bear the consequences of an uncontrolled war. For this reason, the Israeli response is expected to be relatively limited.
Suwailem pointed out that wars often deteriorate into something more dangerous than expected, and the situation could slide into a broader confrontation, especially if Iran responds forcefully to any future Israeli strikes.
A very painful blow to Israel
Regarding the Iranian strike on Tuesday evening, Suwailem describes it as extremely painful for Israel, and based his opinion on unofficial reports indicating that Iran succeeded in disabling five Israeli military bases, in addition to completely destroying other camps. He also considers Israel’s request for blood donations in Tel Aviv an indication of the extent of the losses it has incurred.
On the technical side, Suwailem explained that Iran succeeded in deceiving Israel and the United States by moving regular missile platforms, while at the same time launching hypersonic missiles and drones, which led to the failure of Israeli and American defenses to intercept them.
Suwailem believes that the Iranian response to any potential Israeli strike will be severe and strong, especially if Israel targets Iranian oil sites.
Suwailem stressed that the recent Iranian strike was deliberate and came as a response to targeting Hezbollah, which Israel seeks to eliminate as part of broader plans aimed at changing the Iranian regime.
Suwailem pointed out that Israel will find itself facing two decisive choices: either to respond and bear the consequences, or to swallow the Iranian strike and deal with its repercussions internally.
Suwailem explained that October 7 was a rebellion against the reality and plans that Benjamin Netanyahu and his government wanted to bring Gaza into and displace its people, so Israel is the one who is dragging the region into wars.
Any Israeli response must be coordinated with Washington.
In turn, the writer and political analyst specializing in American affairs, Dr. Hussein Al-Deek, said: Any Israeli response to the recent Iranian strike will be in full coordination with the United States of America, noting that Israel will not take a unilateral decision in this regard without Washington’s approval.
Al-Deek explains that this is due to the fact that Iran is a country with a regular army and a huge military arsenal, in addition to being a member of the United Nations, which means that any potential Iranian response must be prepared by the United States, and therefore Israel will not move without guarantees and coordination with the United States of America.
Al-Deek pointed out that the expected Israeli response may coincide with the US presidential elections scheduled to be held in early November.
Al-Deek pointed out that there are two main factors that will determine the nature of this Israeli response; the first factor is the size of the Israeli strike and the facilities that will be targeted, whether military, civilian or nuclear. If the Israeli strike targets vital and sensitive Iranian facilities, the Iranian response will inevitably be strong, and may lead to an escalation of matters towards an open war.
The second factor, according to Al-Deek, is the relationship between the United States and Iran, and the ongoing negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program. If understandings are reached that prevent Iran from responding to Israel in exchange for making concessions on the nuclear file, a greater escalation may be avoided. However, if the negotiations reach a dead end, the Iranian response will be strong, and may not necessarily come directly from Iran, but rather from its allies in the axis of resistance in the region.
Israeli blackout on actual damage
Regarding the Iranian strike that took place on Tuesday evening, Al-Deek explained that the talk about Iran not using missiles with great destructive power is due to the Israeli media blackout on the actual damage, whether material or human.
Al-Deek added: The missiles that fell on sites in the West Bank had a limited impact, which reinforces the hypothesis of a "controlled response" by Iran.
He said: This indicates that Iran wanted to launch a limited strike aimed at saving face without causing a major escalation or things getting out of control, to avoid further human or material losses.
Al-Deek explained that there are indications that Iran informed a third party of its intentions to strike Israel, and Washington was informed of this. This step may be part of Washington’s “pacing” policy between Tel Aviv and Tehran, which aims to absorb tensions and prevent them from escalating into a full-scale war.
Not enough hit
Regarding the Iranian threats of a strong response in the event of a severe Israeli strike, Al-Deek believes that these threats come within the framework of strengthening moral influences internally, especially after the criticism that Iran received following the last strike. Some considered that the Iranian strike was not sufficient to respond to what they described as the “Israeli crime,” referring to the violation of Iranian sovereignty and the assassination of leading figures, such as Ismail Haniyeh, head of the political bureau of Hamas, or Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.
Al-Deek does not expect an open war to break out between Israel and Iran at the present time, due to internal reasons related to both parties, in addition to its connection to the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear file.
Israeli-American consultations to determine response to Iran
Dr. Saad Nimr, Professor of Political Science at Birzeit University, believes that the Israeli response to the recent Iranian strike will be strong and comprehensive, given the size of the strike that affected large areas.
Nimr pointed out that the recent Iranian strike is different from the one that occurred last April, as the previous strike was more moral in nature than real, and the Israeli response at that time was not harsh, due to pressure from the United States, which wanted to avoid a military escalation in the region. However, things now seem different, as the United States clearly supports the Israeli response, and consultations are taking place between Washington and Tel Aviv to determine the nature of the response.
Nimr pointed to leaks that expect Israel to target vital sites in Iran, such as oil production facilities or nuclear reactors, and it seems that the strike will be strong this time after Washington gave Israel the green light.
Despite diplomatic efforts aimed at reducing the severity of the response to avoid the outbreak of a large-scale war in the region, the situation, according to Nimr, suggests that military escalation has become likely, especially since Iran would have received a blow from Israel had it not initiated its strike.
Netanyahu seeks to drag America into a war with Iran
Nimr believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to drag the United States into a war against Iran at any cost, and this is confirmed by his previous statements about “changing the Middle East for the next fifty years,” which indicate his desire to eliminate resistance movements in the region.
Nimr pointed out that Netanyahu believes that striking Iran is the key to stopping the supply of weapons and logistical support to resistance movements in the region, which he sees as part of a strategic project that is in harmony with American policies in the region.
Regarding Iranian missiles, Nimr believes that the last strike was not as weak as some are trying to portray it, as the hundreds of missiles launched by Iran did not cause widespread destruction.
Nimr pointed out that Iran chose to deliver a “painful blow” to Israel rather than a major escalation at this stage, citing a comparison between Operation True Promise 1, which took place six months ago, and which involved regular drones and missiles that were easily intercepted, and Operation True Promise 2, which took place on Tuesday evening, in which Iran used ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles that accurately achieved their targets.
Nimr stressed that Iran has the ability to launch more destructive strikes, but this time it chose a strong deterrent message without reaching total destruction.
Nimr believes that Netanyahu's perception that the Iranian strike was a failure because it did not cause widespread destruction is a misinterpretation, as the strike achieved its military objectives and targeted vital sites for Israel, in a clear indication that Iran is prepared for greater escalation if necessary.
Nimr stressed that Iran does not want a broad, comprehensive, and regional war, while Israel does.
Israel seeks to restore its lost prestige on October 7
Dr. Raed Abu Badawiyya, Professor of International Law and International Relations at the Arab American University, said: Israel saw the assassination of Hamas Political Bureau Chief Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah as a strategic victory, through which it seeks to restore its prestige that it lost after the October 7 attacks, and to deter the growing Iranian influence in the region, which prompted Iran to launch a deterrent strike against Israel as a direct response to those operations and to stop Israel’s influence and arrogance in the region.
Abu Badawiya pointed out that Israel is now considering launching a strong strike against Iran, according to statements by Israeli officials, after Iran's strike on Tuesday evening, suggesting that the strike will likely be directed at the Iranian nuclear reactor.
Abu Badawiya explained that the current international circumstances may be favorable for Israel to carry out this strike.
However, Abu Badawiya warned that such a strike and Israel's practices could lead to resentment among some regimes in the region, which could prompt countries such as Turkey and Russia to intervene on Iran's behalf.
Abu Badawiya pointed out that things in the Middle East are heading towards a major escalation, as the possibility of the Israeli response getting out of control cannot be ruled out, which could lead to a large-scale regional war.
"Deterrent message" more than a destructive strike
The recent Iranian strike targeting Israel was, in Abu Badawiya’s estimation, more of a “deterrent message” than a comprehensive destructive strike.
Abu Badawiya explained that Iran's notification to some countries of its intention to launch this strike reflects Tehran's desire to send a clear message that it does not seek to enter into a comprehensive war in the region, but rather aims primarily to avenge the assassination of Haniyeh and Nasrallah, and to stop Israeli expansion in the region.
Abu Badawiya pointed out that the statements of Iranian officials after the strike on Israel, which included a threat of a strong response if Israel responded to the strike, came as an indication that Iran is not seeking an open war, but rather was content with a retaliatory response.
However, Abu Badawiya believes that things could deteriorate quickly if Israel decides to launch a harsh strike against Iran, as the latter will be ready to respond forcefully, increasing the possibility of things slipping into an open regional war.
Abu Badawiya stressed that the upcoming scenarios in the region depend largely on the nature of the Israeli response and its repercussions, stressing that the Middle East is on the brink of an unprecedented escalation that could drag international and regional parties into a wider conflict.
Share your opinion
Israel's options: respond and bring about a greater response, or swallow the blow and lose prestige?