have arisen among geopolitical analysts over the escalating animosity between Israel and Iran. They have voiced the consensus that an open conflict between the two nations would not serve the interests of any country in the Middle East, warning that such hostilities would culminate in a full-fledged showdown. In this scenario, regional powers would likely remain as bystanders. Noted strategist and Institute for the Study of War senior fellow, Matt McInnis, emphasized that Arab nations would prefer to stay neutral.
McInnis elucidated that nations within the region may find themselves inadvertently entangled in this potential conflict – a prospect causing anxiety in Iran. The tension has escalated following Iran’s repeated threats of retaliation against Israel subsequent to an Israeli strike on an Iranian consulate in Damascus. This assault resulted in the unfortunate loss of seven members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including two of its generals.
The immediate threat from Iran has caused a shift in U.S. CENTCOM Gen. Michael Kurilla’s schedule, moving him to expedite his meeting with Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant. This urgent meeting’s focus was to evaluate the military readiness of Israel, confirmed Pentagon Press Secretary and Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder during a Thursday press briefing.
Jonathan Conricus, previously outspoke spokesman for the IDF and currently a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), downplayed the media’s portrayal of tension around Iran’s impending response to Israel. During the FDD’s Morning Brief podcast, he even termed the escalating fear in Israel as a ‘minor panic’. So as to assuage these fears, he assured listeners of the strategic thinking governing Iran’s response to the crisis.
Conricus praised Iran’s tactical approach in these matters. He described Iranians as disciplined strategists who are well-versed in avoiding hasty actions based on emotional responses. He highlighted that despite the belligerent rhetoric currently prevalent, Iranians are known for their long-term vision and strategy.
Echoing Conricus’s viewpoint, Gen. Jack Keane from the Institute for the Study of War (IFSW) opined that Iran cannot ignore the international ramifications of IRGC headquarters’ strike in Syria. While it is a reality that cannot be overlooked, he expressed his belief that Iran will most likely seek a calculated response, avoiding an outright escalation of hostility.
Keane presented an audacious proposal to disrupt Iran’s IRGC infrastructure within its borders, signaling Iran’s unwillingness for a direct confrontation. He stressed that Iran’s military might lies not in a strong air force or navy, nor in well-equipped troops, but in its stockpile of drones and missiles. According to him, instead of resorting to conventional warfare, Iran could leverage these resources effectively against adversaries.
However, Matt McInnis took a nuanced standpoint regarding the nature of the conflict. Through his lens, it was not about Iran being strong or weak per se. He maintained that Iran could secure some advantages in small-scale conflicts that involved proxy forces, largely attributed to the integration of IRGC personnel with groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Another perspective comes from Bill Roggio, the founder and editor of ‘The Long War Journal. He underscored Iran’s strategy of using proxy groups to wage wars while maintaining enough distance to avoid all-out escalation. This approach, Roggio highlighted, lends a certain degree of strategic ambiguity to Iran’s military maneuvers.
‘A rather overlooked fact is that a simmering war between Iran and Israel is already ongoing, albeit through Iran’s proxies,’ Roggio argues. Israel already finds itself under threat from these proxies, but what remains uncertain is whether these threats may escalate.
Roggio emphasized the significance of Iran’s allies in the region, pointing out that these allies have the potential to wield significant power. To illuminate this point, he noted Lebanon’s importance as key proxy, particularly in Iraq, where they hold substantial sway.
Roggio additionally highlighted the geopolitical importance of Iran’s relationships with Russia and China. These nations have built strong diplomatic ties with Iran, as shown by their invitation for Iran to join the BRICS economic bloc in the past year.
In discussing the relationships amongst Iran, Russia, and China, Roggio noted their increasingly robust alliance. Russia and China, he suggested, might provide the kind of support that keeps the conflict simmering, although he declared it uncertain how this would manifest.
Meanwhile, the international community is watching the escalation closely. The possible expansion of this conflict could have far-reaching implications for regional stability. The strategies of each player in this scenario will define the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East for the foreseeable future.
In conclusion, the potential for escalated tensions between Iran and Israel will continue to be a focal point of global attention. The stakes are high, and the real challenge will be to steer ahead without exacerbating the volatile situation, ensuring peace and stability in defiance of any threats to the contrary.
