-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
As covert hostilities go overt, Netanyahu and Khamenei’s strategic calculations risk normalising escalation in a region already strained by proxy warfare and nuclear anxiety.
Image Source: Getty
Ninety-six hours into the ongoing war between Israel and Iran have brought an already fraught Middle East to another proverbial brink. This time, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Mossad targeted military and nuclear sites deep inside Iran to force a significant setback, if not a total dismantlement, of the country’s nuclear weapons programme. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has justified his decision to nip in the bud what he claims represents an existential threat to his country. Iran, meanwhile, has viewed the attack as a declaration of war.
Israel and Iran have been involved in a shadow war for decades, underpinning a core element of the region’s geopolitical tensions. The expectation that US President Donald Trump would serve as the ace of spades in the region’s strategic deck may not have materialised, possibly prompting the Israeli leadership to initiate kinetic action. With the future of a renewed US-Iran nuclear agreement hanging in the balance, the coming weeks and months will shine a spotlight on the decision-making of the Middle East’s two most consequential leaders: Netanyahu and Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei.
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is the start and end point of all power in the country. The 86-year-old cleric oversees the country’s most powerful military establishment, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and now arguably faces the Shia state’s biggest crisis since the Iran–Iraq war of 1980-1988. Back then, Iran did have to capitulate into a ceasefire, a scar the state has carried to this day.
The complete absence of air assets to intercept and challenge Israeli jets over Iranian skies—operating thousands of miles away from their home bases and hence also in vulnerable positions—highlights that the Iranian military was more potent on paper than in practice.
The Israeli strikes have exposed Tehran’s vulnerabilities. Dozens of senior Iranian military leaders, including those in the IRGC, intelligence, and army, have been eliminated. The precision of the strikes aside, the key revelation is that Iranian military and nuclear systems had been deeply compromised over the years, considering Israel knew exactly what buildings and compounds to target. The complete absence of air assets to intercept and challenge Israeli jets over Iranian skies—operating thousands of miles away from their home bases and hence also in vulnerable positions—highlights that the Iranian military was more potent on paper than in practice. These outcomes may come as a greater shock to the Iranian public than to the international community. The realisation that the state lacks the military capability to defend its nuclear infrastructure marks a jarring fault line in strategic planning.
Moving forward, the Iranian government may pivot towards a mixture of diplomacy with the US while simultaneously galvanising public sentiment around nationalism, even among those who may well be staunchly opposed to the Ayatollah-led regime. Public anger over Israeli actions in Gaza already leans in Tehran’s favour across the region, which the regime may leverage to consolidate support. The fact that there is no official succession plan for who leads the country after the ageing Ayatollah, despite much speculation, raises troubling questions about the future of the Islamic Republic. In the hypothetical and unlikely scenario that Iran’s theocracy collapses, a more hard-line, ideologically driven, and less realist state could emerge.
In the hypothetical and unlikely scenario that Iran’s theocracy collapses, a more hard-line, ideologically driven, and less realist state could emerge.
The Netanyahu Quandary
Israel striking Iran under Netanyahu’s leadership is less surprising than many might think. The Israeli leader has long championed the idea of targeting Iran’s nuclear programme, which has been at the centre of Israeli strategic concerns since the early 2000s. While it is true that domestic considerations such as preserving his hold on power are certainly at play, Netanyahu has consistently framed Iran as an existential threat to the Israeli people.
A nuclear-armed Iran, where the theocracy has since 1979 called for the destruction of Israel, would upend the regional power balance, eroding Israel’s current strategic advantages, including its highly advanced military and defence industrial complex. It would also challenge Israel’s own nuclear ambiguity: Tel Aviv is widely believed to be an undeclared nuclear power. Ironically, many of the concerns Israel now raises about Iran’s nuclear intentions mirror those the US once had about Israel’s own programme in the 1960s. Nuclear brinkmanship involves building deterrent capacity despite the odds and using this power to make sure adversaries within a geography of strategic interest cannot achieve the same.
Ironically, many of the concerns Israel now raises about Iran’s nuclear intentions mirror those the US once had about Israel’s own programme in the 1960s.
Netanyahu decided to attack Iran now for multiple reasons. First, the strike was partially motivated by the fear that Trump might sign a nuclear deal with Tehran, which, in Netanyahu’s view, would leave Israel sidelined and provide Iran with more space to enrich uranium. Second, the October 7 terror attacks by Hamas gave Netanyahu political cover to strike Iran, especially after Tehran’s proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah, suffered heavy losses in the Israeli retaliatory response. Notably, Hezbollah has reportedly indicated that it will not initiate an attack against Israel in response to aggression against Iran. This is a significant achievement for Netanyahu, considering that Hezbollah remains an important ideological, political, and military extension of Iranian influence in Lebanon.
While Israel has claimed tactical victories, the long-term strategic aims remain unclear. Sustaining a protracted conflict with Iran will take a toll on Israel’s high-end but relatively small military. The country’s military is still engaged in Gaza, remains vigilant about the new dispensation in Syria, and will have to ensure that Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Iranian proxies cannot regroup over time. So far, Iraq’s Kata’ib Hezbollah is the only proxy group which has publicly come out in support of Iran. While Netanyahu’s own domestic popularity and political survival have been under the lens, for now, he will be seen and act as a wartime leader.
While Israel has claimed tactical victories, the long-term strategic aims remain unclear. Sustaining a protracted conflict with Iran will take a toll on Israel’s high-end but relatively small military.
The only power that can significantly influence the outcome of this conflict is the United States—a paradox, given that Trump won the presidency on a platform of criticising American involvement in foreign wars. Should he intervene and assist Netanyahu in taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities, he would be alienating a large section of his base both politically and within influential circles in Washington, potentially tarnishing his legacy. On the other hand, if Trump sits back, and in a protracted war, Israel does face heat, he would be seen as failing to uphold one of America’s long-standing foreign policy objectives: the security of Israel. These factors are further complicated by Trump’s tendency to prioritise personality over policy, lacking any long-standing conviction on strategy.
Even with US intervention, this conflict is as much a war of convictions and ideas as it is of missiles and weapons systems. The unfolding of the region’s most entrenched crisis in a manner never seen before now threatens progress, prosperity, and partnerships across the Middle East.
Kabir Taneja is a Deputy Director and Fellow with the Strategic Studies programme at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Kabir Taneja is a Deputy Director and Fellow, Middle East, with the Strategic Studies programme. His research focuses on India’s relations with the Middle East ...
Read More +
PREV
