Logo
Logo
Logo
Logo
Logo
Logo
Logo
Logo
Logo

ARAB AND WORLD

Sat 12 Oct 2024 9:58 am - Jerusalem Time

A clear change in Iranian strategy towards Israel

News Analysis


Experts believe that Iran’s second missile strike on Israel on October 1 marks a major escalation in the conflict between the two regional powers. After Israel assassinated Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31, and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and General Abbas Nilforoushan of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Beirut on September 27, Iran launched a direct and open attack on its archenemy. Now the conflict between Iran and Israel threatens to push the entire Middle East to the brink of a full-blown regional war.


Regardless of whether this war occurs, the exchange of attacks between Iran and Israel has already created a new regional power equation that will persist well beyond this specific confrontation. “Seven far-reaching strategic consequences of the Iran-Israel conflict have become clear,” according to Foreign Policy, a magazine specializing in American foreign affairs.


First, the foundation of Iran’s national security and military strategy is gradually shifting from reliance on non-state military allies in the region to a new form of deterrence. This profound shift can be seen in the replacement of key figures in Iran’s military organization: from General Qassem Soleimani, the former commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force who was responsible for Iran’s extraterritorial military operations in the region, to General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the IRGC’s Aerospace Force. This suggests that Iran’s gray zone strategy, which prioritized indirect conflict by non-state allies including Hamas and Hezbollah, is now a complementary approach.


Second, according to the magazine, Iran has also abandoned its stance of “strategic patience.” Since the end of the bloody eight-year war with Iraq, Iranian military leaders have adopted a covert strategy of absorbing great pain while retaliating at a time of their choosing. However, decades of continued Israeli sabotage on Iranian soil have reduced Iran’s “strategic ambiguity” to what has come to be known as passive strategic patience, characterized by the absence of retaliatory action. Despite its apparent reluctance to make bold domestic policy decisions, Iran has now abandoned its strategic patience for a second time. It has concluded, under intense pressure from influential supporters and the broader public at home, that failure to respond would constitute a strategic turning point.


Third, Iran has now established a clear policy of deterrence.


The powerful response by the IRGC also demonstrated Iran’s will and ability to carry out a devastating attack on Israel. In contrast to the first strike on April 13, in which most of the Iranian missiles and drones were intercepted, the second missile strike proved successful, penetrating advanced Israeli defense systems.


“Despite Israel having one of the most defended airspaces in the world, equipped with the latest anti-missile technology, several Iranian missiles have managed to hit major airports in Israel,” according to the magazine.


This highlights the centrality of missile power to Iran’s national security strategy, and reinforces the fact that its missile capabilities are likely to remain non-negotiable in future talks with the West. Tehran may now be more motivated to enhance its military capabilities, which could include deploying Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets, purchasing Russian-made missile defense systems, and expanding military cooperation with Moscow.


Fourth, Iran’s new red line with Israel has been set. For nearly 15 years, Tel Aviv has carried out devastating strikes on Iranian military bases in Syria, even directly targeting top Iranian generals. However, Israel’s bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus on April 1 crossed a critical threshold, prompting Iran to hit Israel again with a barrage of less advanced missiles and drones two weeks later. This marked the collapse of Iran’s traditional red lines with Israel.


In response to continued Israeli actions, including the assassination of a Hamas leader in Tehran and a Hezbollah leader in Beirut, Iran’s response was aimed at reestablishing a level of deterrence. Next time, Iran crossed two important red lines: striking Israeli territory from its own territory and targeting a nuclear-armed state. Interestingly, Iran struck another nuclear power, Pakistan, less than ten months ago. Tehran’s message was clear: the sanctity of its territory is a fundamental red line for both the government and society, even if it cannot fully protect its military bases in the Levant from Israeli airstrikes. In the absence of a firm red line to contain the Iranian-Israeli rivalry, both sides are likely to seek to redraw the lines through continued tit-for-tat strikes, especially in the run-up to this year’s U.S. presidential election.


Fifth, Iran’s influence on the Arab street appears to have increased. The soft power gains from this latest offensive are likely to restore Iran’s popularity in the Muslim world, which has been tarnished in recent years.


Sixth, an Israeli retaliatory strike against Iran could lead to a radical shift in Tehran’s nuclear policy. There are powerful voices in Iran, mostly from the hardline camp, who advocate pursuing nuclear energy as a strategic means of restoring the country’s full deterrence. These advocates argue that Iran’s most effective tool to deter Israeli aggression is its strategic decision to fully develop nuclear weapons. This argument could gain significant traction in the wake of a potential Israeli retaliatory strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.


As a result, the prospect of an Israeli military strike could serve to accelerate Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear energy. The West’s obsession with a complete Iranian disarmament, combined with giving Israel a blank check to pressure Iran’s non-state allies in the Levant and even Iranian territory, could lead to an unintended consequence: a nuclear-armed Iran.


Seventh, this conflict highlights the clash between technological power and geopolitical power. While Iran benefits from significant geopolitical advantages, Israel’s vulnerability lies in its geopolitical vulnerability, confined to a small area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This geopolitical difference has shaped their strategies, with Iran favoring gray zone operations supported by its network of non-state allies, while Israel relies on a strategy of first shock and preemption rooted in technological superiority.


Although technology plays an increasingly important role in military revolutions, geopolitics remains essential in shaping the course of regional rivalries. Technology erodes the weight of enduring geopolitical realities, but it can never completely erase them. In this sense, the escalating Iran-Israel conflict also challenges simplistic narratives about the “end of the Middle East” in American foreign policy.


In a broader context, the fate of Washington’s major rivalries in the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic regions is increasingly oriented toward the Persian Gulf and Levant, as Tehran works to strengthen its ties with Moscow and Beijing. This dynamic is refocusing Middle Eastern geopolitics. The Iran-Israel conflict is an early manifestation, but it is far from the final chapter.

Tags

Share your opinion

A clear change in Iranian strategy towards Israel

MORE FROM ARAB AND WORLD