The prospect of Israeli Military Attacks against Iran

The situation between Israel and Iran has been characterized by deep-seated hostility and ongoing tensions that have, at times, bordered on direct military confrontation. The prospect of Israeli military attacks against Iran is influenced by a wide range of factors, including geopolitical dynamics, strategic interests, and the state of each nation's military capabilities. In this essay, we will explore the potential forms of military attacks that Israel could employ against Iran, while also considering the consequences, unpredictability’s, and associated risks that stem from such an escalation.

1. The Strategic Background of the Conflict

Israel and Iran have been engaged in a proxy conflict for decades, rooted in competing ideological, geopolitical, and security interests. Israel perceives Iran’s nuclear ambitions as an existential threat, compounded by Tehran's vocal opposition to Israel's existence and its support for militant groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. On the other side, Iran views Israel as an extension of Western influence in the Middle East and has often threatened to retaliate against any perceived aggression by Israel.

2. Potential Forms of Attack

Israel's military doctrine is built around the concept of preemptive strikes and deterrence, with the ultimate goal of ensuring its national security and maintaining a qualitative military edge in the region. The potential military attacks that Israel might consider against Iran include:

a. Airstrikes and Missile Strikes

Israel is likely to use its advanced air force, equipped with state-of-the-art fighter jets such as the F-35, to target critical Iranian infrastructure. These strikes could focus on Iran’s nuclear facilities, missile production sites, and command-and-control centers. Israel has shown in the past, through operations such as the 1981 airstrike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor (Operation Opera) and the 2007 attack on Syria’s nuclear reactor (Operation Orchard), that it is willing to conduct preemptive strikes to neutralize threats before they materialize.

Missile strikes could also play a significant role. Israel’s long-range ballistic and cruise missile capabilities would enable it to reach Iranian targets from Israeli territory or from the Mediterranean Sea. Such an approach could minimize the risk to Israeli pilots while still inflicting considerable damage on Iranian facilities.

b. Cyber Warfare

Israel has invested heavily in cyber capabilities and could conduct cyberattacks against Iran’s nuclear program and military infrastructure. The 2010 Stuxnet operation, which allegedly involved Israeli and U.S. cooperation to disrupt Iran’s uranium enrichment processes, is an example of how cyber warfare can serve as a means to degrade Iran’s capabilities without resorting to traditional kinetic attacks. Cyber operations can also be used to disrupt critical infrastructure, communication networks, and command-and-control systems, potentially creating confusion and paralysis within Iran’s military.

c. Covert Operations and Special Forces

Another likely approach is the use of covert operations, carried out by Mossad or elite units such as Sayeret Matkal. These could include targeted assassinations of key figures within Iran’s nuclear and military establishments, as has been seen in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists over the past decade. Covert sabotage operations, such as mysterious explosions at military facilities, also provide Israel with the ability to inflict damage while maintaining plausible deniability.

d. Naval Attacks and Blockades

Israel’s navy, particularly its fleet of Dolphin-class submarines, could potentially be used to launch missile strikes from the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Sea. Submarine-launched cruise missiles are difficult to detect and intercept, providing Israel with a strategic advantage in targeting Iran’s coastal and inland infrastructure. In addition, Israel may consider imposing a naval blockade to disrupt Iranian oil exports, adding economic pressure on the Iranian government.

3. Risks and Consequences

The potential military attacks against Iran by Israel carry significant risks, both for Israel and the broader region. The unpredictability of Iran’s response is one of the primary concerns for Israeli military planners. Iran’s retaliation could take various forms, ranging from direct ballistic missile attacks on Israeli cities to proxy attacks by Hezbollah and other allied militias in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq.

a. Escalation and Retaliation

Iran has a robust missile program, including ballistic and cruise missiles capable of reaching Israeli territory. The Iranian leadership has repeatedly warned that any attack on its soil would be met with a massive response, potentially targeting not only Israel but also U.S. military bases and allied Gulf states. The unpredictable nature of these missile attacks raises the specter of a full-scale regional war, which would put civilian populations at risk and could lead to the complete destruction of infrastructure in affected areas.

b. Proxy Warfare

Iran’s network of regional proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, represents another significant threat to Israel. Hezbollah is believed to possess over 100,000 rockets and missiles, many of which are capable of reaching major Israeli population centers. A military strike on Iran could trigger a coordinated attack by these proxy forces, overwhelming Israel’s missile defense systems and leading to significant casualties and destruction. The unpredictability of the timing and intensity of these proxy attacks further adds to the overall risk of an Israeli strike on Iran.

c. Global Economic Impact

Iran, situated near the Strait of Hormuz, controls a vital chokepoint through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes. An Israeli strike could prompt Iran to block the strait, leading to a dramatic spike in global oil prices and triggering an economic crisis. Such a scenario would draw international condemnation and pressure both Israel and Iran to de-escalate, making military action a highly complex and politically sensitive endeavor.

d. International Diplomatic Fallout

An Israeli attack on Iran could have serious diplomatic repercussions. While Israel may secure tacit approval from certain regional partners such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, it is likely to face condemnation from other international actors, including European nations, Russia, and China. The United States would be placed in a difficult position, forced to navigate between its support for Israel and its broader interests in the region. The diplomatic fallout could further isolate Israel on the international stage and lead to economic sanctions or other punitive measures.

4. Conclusion

The prospect of an Israeli military attack on Iran is fraught with complexities and dangers. The potential forms of attack—airstrikes, cyber warfare, covert operations, and naval blockades—all carry risks of escalation and unintended consequences. The unpredictability of Iran’s response, coupled with the risk of total destruction of critical infrastructure, poses a significant threat to regional stability.

Furthermore, any military action is likely to have severe repercussions, both in terms of human casualties and economic disruption. Given these concerns, it is crucial that all stakeholders work towards diplomatic solutions to address the underlying tensions and prevent the scenario of direct military confrontation. Dialogue, confidence-building measures, and international mediation are essential tools to mitigate the risk of conflict and ensure that the region does not descend into a catastrophic war.

What would be the reasonable strategy to avert the conflict?

To avert a potential conflict between Israel and Iran, a reasonable strategy must prioritize diplomacy, de-escalation, and confidence-building, ensuring that the core concerns of both nations are addressed. Below are several key strategies that could help achieve this:

1. Diplomatic Engagement and Negotiation

a. Revival of the JCPOA

A critical step would be the revival and strengthening of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal. This agreement, originally signed in 2015, aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions. Restoring and expanding the JCPOA would help ensure that Iran’s nuclear program remains strictly for peaceful purposes and alleviate Israel’s concerns about Iran developing a nuclear weapon.

b. Multilateral Dialogue

Multilateral engagement involving key global and regional players is essential for reducing tensions. Establishing an international forum, including countries such as the United States, Russia, China, and the European Union, could foster direct dialogue between Iran and Israel. Such a platform could help address grievances, offer assurances, and create incentives for both sides to avoid escalation.

c. Regional Security Framework

Promoting the establishment of a regional security framework in the Middle East, where Gulf States, Iran, and Israel could discuss collective security concerns, may help de-escalate tensions. Such a framework could focus on non-aggression pacts, arms control agreements, and transparency measures, providing a mechanism for all sides to address threats and disputes without resorting to violence.

2. Confidence-Building Measures

a. Mutual Reduction of Hostile Rhetoric

The aggressive rhetoric used by both Iran and Israel contributes significantly to the tension. Encouraging both sides to tone down inflammatory language and adopt a more measured and diplomatic tone can create an environment more conducive to negotiation and de-escalation. Public statements that indicate a willingness to engage in dialogue can help reduce the perception of imminent conflict.

b. Military Transparency

Confidence-building measures such as mutual transparency about military exercises and activities can help reduce the risk of miscalculations. For example, both Israel and Iran could provide advance notice of military drills or establish a communication channel to clarify activities that might otherwise be perceived as threatening.

c. People-to-People Diplomacy

Encouraging informal contacts between citizens, academics, and NGOs from both nations can build trust and change public perceptions. Exchange programs and cultural initiatives could help foster understanding and create a foundation for long-term peace between Israelis and Iranians.

3. Economic Incentives

a. Economic Sanctions Relief

International actors, including the United States and the European Union, could offer economic incentives, such as partial sanctions relief, to Iran in exchange for verifiable steps toward reducing military capabilities that are perceived as threatening by Israel. By improving Iran's economic situation, such measures may also reduce the motivations for Iran to engage in hostile actions to assert regional influence.

b. Trade and Investment Opportunities

Regional economic cooperation involving Israel, Iran, and other neighboring states could be promoted. Joint infrastructure projects, energy initiatives, and trade agreements could create mutual economic dependencies, making military conflict less attractive. Highlighting the economic benefits of peaceful coexistence can shift the focus from military posturing to development.

4. Addressing Proxy Conflicts

a. Negotiations on Proxy Forces

One of the main sources of Israeli concern is Iran’s support for militant proxies, such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Addressing the activities of these groups is crucial to averting conflict. In exchange for sanctions relief or economic assistance, Iran could be encouraged to scale back support for these proxies or use its influence to moderate their activities. At the same time, Israel could also work to address the underlying issues that fuel the popularity of such groups, including the situation in Gaza.

b. Third-Party Mediation

Third-party mediators, such as Oman or Switzerland, which have historically played intermediary roles in the region, could facilitate indirect discussions between Israel and Iran regarding the activities of their proxies. Such mediation could help reduce misunderstandings and prevent an escalation resulting from a proxy-based incident.

5. Security Guarantees and Assurances

a. US and International Security Assurances

The United States and other major powers could offer security guarantees to both Israel and Iran. For Israel, this could mean an assurance that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons and that the international community will act if such a threat emerges. For Iran, it could include guarantees against regime change or direct military aggression. Such assurances can help both sides feel more secure and less inclined to take preemptive action.

b. Non-Aggression Pact

A non-aggression pact involving Israel, Iran, and neighboring states could be considered as a step toward reducing the risk of war. This agreement would require all parties to pledge not to attack one another and could be monitored by an international body, such as the United Nations, to ensure compliance.

6. Limiting Military Capabilities

a. Arms Control Agreements

Encouraging arms control agreements could help prevent an arms race between Israel and Iran. While it is unlikely that both nations would fully disarm, agreements to limit the production and deployment of certain categories of weapons, such as long-range ballistic missiles, could help reduce the risk of escalation.

b. Establishing a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone

The idea of establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East has been proposed in the past but has faced numerous obstacles. Renewed efforts toward this goal, with international backing, could help address Israel's concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, while simultaneously providing assurances to Iran that Israel will not pursue further nuclear development.

7. Engagement with Regional Actors

a. Involving Regional Powers

The involvement of regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Turkey is crucial in the de-escalation process. These countries have their own interests regarding the Israel-Iran rivalry and could play a positive role in bringing both sides to the negotiating table. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, in particular, have recently shown willingness to engage in dialogue with Iran, which could be used to promote a broader regional peace initiative.

b. Support for the Abraham Accords

The Abraham Accords, which established diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab nations, could be expanded to include new members, further isolating the push toward conflict. Iran could be encouraged to participate in regional dialogues that include both Arab states and Israel, with a focus on reducing hostilities and promoting cooperation.

Conclusion

The risk of military conflict between Israel and Iran is significant, with unpredictable consequences for the region and the world. A reasonable strategy to avert this conflict should involve a combination of diplomatic engagement, confidence-building measures, economic incentives, and efforts to limit military capabilities. Restoring the JCPOA, reducing support for proxy forces, and establishing a regional security framework are all essential components of a broader strategy to de-escalate tensions.

Through sustained international and regional cooperation, it is possible to reduce the risk of conflict, address the underlying security concerns of both Israel and Iran, and create a foundation for lasting peace in the Middle East. The emphasis must be on dialogue, mutual respect, and a recognition of the devastating costs of war, ensuring that all sides see peace as the most desirable path forward.