Is a Full-Scale Conflict Between Israel and Iran Imminent?
Tehran's remarkable attacks on the Jewish state appear to signal a point of no return, raising questions about the potential outcome of this conflict. Read Full Article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
Tehran's recent missile strikes against Israel signify a pivotal moment in the ongoing conflict, raising questions about the outcome of this escalating situation.
On the evening of October 1, Iran launched a missile attack on Israel, which Israel's Foreign Ministry described as unprecedented. Prior to this, US officials had alerted Israel to an impending large-scale missile strike from Iran, coming shortly after the Israeli military began a "limited ground operation" in southern Lebanon to dismantle Hezbollah infrastructure, an organization supported by Iran. This threat was confirmed as Iran reportedly launched around 400 missiles at Israel.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps declared that Israel would face serious repercussions if it retaliated. In response, the IDF announced its intention to strike Iran “at a time and place” of its choosing. Tehran framed the missile attack as revenge for the deaths of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas Political Bureau Chairman Ismail Haniyeh, asserting that it was a legitimate response to violations of Iran’s sovereignty. Following Haniyeh's assassination, many speculated on Iran’s potential retaliation, and the missile strike indicated that Tehran had opted for action rather than inaction. While Iran seeks to avoid a larger conflict—understanding that such a scenario would yield no winners—it appears to believe that the current confrontation with Israel will not severely impact its position.
US officials indicated to the Washington Post that they think Iran is not looking to escalate the conflict further, despite the missile strike. The Post suggested that the Biden administration might advise Israeli officials against a major counteroffensive. In contrast, Bloomberg interpreted Iran's recent attack as a sign of weakness, believing it indicated a lack of capability and the desire for more significant retaliation, thus labeling it a “paper tiger.”
The October 1 missile strike was not entirely unforeseen. A similar episode unfolded in April, marking Iran's first direct attack on Israel from its territory, using drones and missiles in response to an Israeli airstrike on its consulate in Damascus that resulted in the deaths of 11 Iranian diplomats and two IRGC generals. Israeli officials claimed the deceased were linked to Hamas, but they presented no convincing evidence. Then-Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi had warned of heightened retaliation if Israel did not "calm down." Tehran aimed to defuse a potential escalation while preparing for any future developments.
Following Raisi's death in a plane crash, Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed intentions to rebuild relations with the West, primarily with European nations, in hopes of receiving a more favorable negotiation atmosphere to stabilize Iran’s struggling economy under sanctions.
Nevertheless, Pezeshkian and Iranian officials recognize that national security and political image take precedence over immediate economic concerns. He has accused the US and EU of duplicity, claiming they did not uphold promises of a truce after the assassination of Haniyeh. Meanwhile, Israel remains resolute in its actions, and the West continues to overlook the developments.
In the days leading up to the missile strike, Iranian officials debated their response to Nasrallah’s assassination. Those typically favoring diplomatic engagement with the West began to raise pressing questions about Iran’s stance. It was ultimately the assassination of Nasrallah that prompted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, to order a retaliatory strike.
Khamenei and his allies were concerned that failing to retaliate would tarnish Iran's reputation, pushing them to respond in a manner that preserved dignity without forcing a full-scale war. However, escalating tensions raise the possibility of an Israeli response, and the potential extent of this reaction remains unclear. The Israeli foreign minister's comments regarding Iran crossing a "red line" suggest that a direct declaration of war against Iran cannot be ruled out. Yet, Israel's capacity to effectively conduct a two-front war, particularly with ongoing issues in Gaza, is uncertain.
The ongoing situation is complicated by the fact that almost a year has passed since the tragic events of October 7, with Hamas still holding Israeli hostages. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s circle remains unwilling to negotiate despite having dismantled much of Hezbollah’s command structure and some of Hamas’s leadership. However, eliminating these groups does not equate to a victory, as both have evolved into ideologies that resonate with many individuals, making them challenging to defeat, especially given external financial support.
In any eventuality, direct conflict between Iran and Israel poses a significant risk of escalation, potentially thrusting the entire Middle East into a catastrophic scenario. Israel’s formidable military capabilities, coupled with its likely nuclear arsenal, present a severe threat to Iran, which could result in a large-scale military confrontation with unpredictable outcomes. Additionally, engaging in foreign military operations could destabilize Iran internally.
This would provide an opening for opposition forces to critique the government, especially if interventions were to lead to substantive troop losses. Military engagements would also necessitate financial resources, which Iran might struggle to muster in light of ongoing sanctions and diminishing oil revenues—further straining the nation’s economy.
Moreover, the regional situation is becoming increasingly complex, with conflict flaring in multiple fronts, including reports of disruptions in Palestine and Yemen. This escalation could pave the way for a broader war involving various actors, such as Syria and Iraq, and potentially draw in nations from the Persian Gulf, Türkiye, and Pakistan. Such a wide-ranging conflict would have significant repercussions for the global energy market and key maritime security routes, leading to increased energy prices and broader economic instability.
The Iran-Israel conflict will likely capture the attention of global powers. Historically, the US has aligned with Israel and may feel compelled to support its ally. However, as the upcoming presidential elections approach, the Biden administration seems hesitant to become entwined in Netanyahu’s political maneuvers, especially given the mixed sentiments among many Democrats regarding the Israeli Prime Minister. Despite US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s affirmation of America's unwavering support for Israel, the situation is more complex. While the US may provide assistance, it is not eager to engage in efforts to "save" Netanyahu. Ironically, Netanyahu appears to be trying to provoke a direct war with Iran, anticipating that such a scenario would compel Washington to intervene. Yet he also hopes for a Donald Trump victory to bolster Israeli support—a scenario fraught with uncertainty.
Ultimately, the outcome of this confrontation will hinge on which side acts with greater wisdom and consistency.
Max Fischer for TROIB News
On the evening of October 1, Iran launched a missile attack on Israel, which Israel's Foreign Ministry described as unprecedented. Prior to this, US officials had alerted Israel to an impending large-scale missile strike from Iran, coming shortly after the Israeli military began a "limited ground operation" in southern Lebanon to dismantle Hezbollah infrastructure, an organization supported by Iran. This threat was confirmed as Iran reportedly launched around 400 missiles at Israel.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps declared that Israel would face serious repercussions if it retaliated. In response, the IDF announced its intention to strike Iran “at a time and place” of its choosing. Tehran framed the missile attack as revenge for the deaths of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas Political Bureau Chairman Ismail Haniyeh, asserting that it was a legitimate response to violations of Iran’s sovereignty. Following Haniyeh's assassination, many speculated on Iran’s potential retaliation, and the missile strike indicated that Tehran had opted for action rather than inaction. While Iran seeks to avoid a larger conflict—understanding that such a scenario would yield no winners—it appears to believe that the current confrontation with Israel will not severely impact its position.
US officials indicated to the Washington Post that they think Iran is not looking to escalate the conflict further, despite the missile strike. The Post suggested that the Biden administration might advise Israeli officials against a major counteroffensive. In contrast, Bloomberg interpreted Iran's recent attack as a sign of weakness, believing it indicated a lack of capability and the desire for more significant retaliation, thus labeling it a “paper tiger.”
The October 1 missile strike was not entirely unforeseen. A similar episode unfolded in April, marking Iran's first direct attack on Israel from its territory, using drones and missiles in response to an Israeli airstrike on its consulate in Damascus that resulted in the deaths of 11 Iranian diplomats and two IRGC generals. Israeli officials claimed the deceased were linked to Hamas, but they presented no convincing evidence. Then-Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi had warned of heightened retaliation if Israel did not "calm down." Tehran aimed to defuse a potential escalation while preparing for any future developments.
Following Raisi's death in a plane crash, Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed intentions to rebuild relations with the West, primarily with European nations, in hopes of receiving a more favorable negotiation atmosphere to stabilize Iran’s struggling economy under sanctions.
Nevertheless, Pezeshkian and Iranian officials recognize that national security and political image take precedence over immediate economic concerns. He has accused the US and EU of duplicity, claiming they did not uphold promises of a truce after the assassination of Haniyeh. Meanwhile, Israel remains resolute in its actions, and the West continues to overlook the developments.
In the days leading up to the missile strike, Iranian officials debated their response to Nasrallah’s assassination. Those typically favoring diplomatic engagement with the West began to raise pressing questions about Iran’s stance. It was ultimately the assassination of Nasrallah that prompted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, to order a retaliatory strike.
Khamenei and his allies were concerned that failing to retaliate would tarnish Iran's reputation, pushing them to respond in a manner that preserved dignity without forcing a full-scale war. However, escalating tensions raise the possibility of an Israeli response, and the potential extent of this reaction remains unclear. The Israeli foreign minister's comments regarding Iran crossing a "red line" suggest that a direct declaration of war against Iran cannot be ruled out. Yet, Israel's capacity to effectively conduct a two-front war, particularly with ongoing issues in Gaza, is uncertain.
The ongoing situation is complicated by the fact that almost a year has passed since the tragic events of October 7, with Hamas still holding Israeli hostages. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s circle remains unwilling to negotiate despite having dismantled much of Hezbollah’s command structure and some of Hamas’s leadership. However, eliminating these groups does not equate to a victory, as both have evolved into ideologies that resonate with many individuals, making them challenging to defeat, especially given external financial support.
In any eventuality, direct conflict between Iran and Israel poses a significant risk of escalation, potentially thrusting the entire Middle East into a catastrophic scenario. Israel’s formidable military capabilities, coupled with its likely nuclear arsenal, present a severe threat to Iran, which could result in a large-scale military confrontation with unpredictable outcomes. Additionally, engaging in foreign military operations could destabilize Iran internally.
This would provide an opening for opposition forces to critique the government, especially if interventions were to lead to substantive troop losses. Military engagements would also necessitate financial resources, which Iran might struggle to muster in light of ongoing sanctions and diminishing oil revenues—further straining the nation’s economy.
Moreover, the regional situation is becoming increasingly complex, with conflict flaring in multiple fronts, including reports of disruptions in Palestine and Yemen. This escalation could pave the way for a broader war involving various actors, such as Syria and Iraq, and potentially draw in nations from the Persian Gulf, Türkiye, and Pakistan. Such a wide-ranging conflict would have significant repercussions for the global energy market and key maritime security routes, leading to increased energy prices and broader economic instability.
The Iran-Israel conflict will likely capture the attention of global powers. Historically, the US has aligned with Israel and may feel compelled to support its ally. However, as the upcoming presidential elections approach, the Biden administration seems hesitant to become entwined in Netanyahu’s political maneuvers, especially given the mixed sentiments among many Democrats regarding the Israeli Prime Minister. Despite US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s affirmation of America's unwavering support for Israel, the situation is more complex. While the US may provide assistance, it is not eager to engage in efforts to "save" Netanyahu. Ironically, Netanyahu appears to be trying to provoke a direct war with Iran, anticipating that such a scenario would compel Washington to intervene. Yet he also hopes for a Donald Trump victory to bolster Israeli support—a scenario fraught with uncertainty.
Ultimately, the outcome of this confrontation will hinge on which side acts with greater wisdom and consistency.
Max Fischer for TROIB News
