Sequels to blog posts are rare, but when events rapidly overtake previously written articles, it becomes essential to update the story and the analysis for loyal readers. As events unfold, this writer stands by the early August analysis that a full-scale war between Israel and Iran remains unlikely. Even after Irans deadly missile strike on Israel on October 1stlaunching nearly 180 ballistic missilesand the imminent Israeli retaliation, the possibility of an all-out war remains distant.
As noted in the earlier blog, missile exchanges between the two nations, along with potential Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear or oil facilities, are probable. However, a full-scale ground war, like the conflict between Russia and Ukraine involving infantry, armoured divisions, and artillery battles, is highly unlikely.
The main reason Israel cannot directly invade Iran is that the two countries do not share a land border. Additionally, a naval invasion is impractical since Israel's navy, with only around 69 vessels, lacks the capacity for a large-scale operation akin to D-Day. Furthermore, any attempt by Israels navy to pass through the Red Sea would face significant risks, as the area is frequently targeted by Houthi rebels in Yemen. This leaves air strikes as the only viable option for attacking Iran.
Dropping paratroopers without armoured support would be reckless, further limiting ground operations. Therefore, aerial bombardment remains the most feasible approach. However, this would not constitute a full-scale war as commonly understood, but rather a series of aerial attacks on each others facilities.
As for potential air battles, a scenario similar to the Battle of Britainfought between the RAF and the German Luftwaffeis also remote due to Israel's overwhelming air superiority compared to Iran's air force. Moreover, the Battle of Britain took place over the English Channel, whereas in this case, Israel would face challenges engaging the Iranian air force over Syria, a country aligned with Iran.
But Israel possesses other highly effective methods to destabilize the Iranian regime, particularly through asymmetric warfare conducted by its intelligence agencies like Mossad and its military intelligence units. A striking example of their ingenuity is the way they neutralized Hezbollah's leadership by embedding explosives in pagers and walkie-talkies, showcasing their deep infiltration capabilities. Its highly likely that Israeli intelligence has already penetrated Iranian forces, and any future attack on Iran might even be executed from within its own establishment.
This scenario seems even more plausible after a recent speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, where he addressed the Iranian people directly; emphasizing that Israels conflict is not with them but with their fundamentalist regime. This message suggests that, unlike its operations in Gaza and Lebanon, Israel may avoid targeting Iranian civilians, as military facilities in Iran are not embedded within civilian areas. The situation differs from Gaza and Lebanon, where groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have integrated themselves within civilian populations, forcing the IDF to respond accordingly.
As far as Iran is concerned, especially that of its fundamentalist regime, it finds itself between a rock and a hard place. It is fully aware that it cannot confront the IDF alone, particularly with the strong military support of the United States behind Israel. The ballistic missile attack on Israel on October 1st clearly wasn't Iran's preferred course of action; rather, it was compelled to act to appease the militant cadres of Hezbollah, a group it has funded, armed, and cultivated. These forces, enraged by the death of their leader Hassan Nasrallah, were demanding revenge against Israel. A similar dynamic has unfolded with other Shiite militant groups in Iraq, the Houthis, and Hamas in Gaza, all of which Iran has empowered as proxies to fight Israel without directly engaging itself. However, the events of the past year indicate that the conflict with Israel has now reached Irans doorstepa direct confrontation that Iran has long sought to avoid.
Following the ballistic missile attack on Israel on October 1st, the Iranian regime has exposed itself to a potential retaliatory strike by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). The Iranian leadership, uncertain about when and how Israel might respond, is likely experiencing considerable anxiety. If Israel focuses its strikes on the regimewhich some Iranians already view as oppressiveit could seriously threaten the regimes future. However, Israel must proceed carefully. A forceful attack could rally Iranians around their government, making Prime Minister Netanyahu's efforts to weaken or dismantle the regime ineffective.
The upcoming U.S. presidential election on November 5th is also weighing heavily on Netanyahu's strategy. With a "lame duck" president in the White House, Israel may have more flexibility in its actions. This suggests that we could see more intense strikes on civilian areas in Gaza and Lebanon.
Additionally, the nuclear issue looms large. Unconfirmed reports indicate that Iranian scientists are just two weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb. Former U.S. President Donald Trump is urging Israel to take immediate action to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, while current President Joe Biden is advocating for restraint in this area.
As it stands, the Middle East appears to be entering a dangerous and unpredictable phase. While neither side may escalate to a full-scale war, both seem poised to inflict significant damage on one another.
Unfortunately, the
cycle of violence in the region shows no signs of abating.
