Iran-Israel: Direct Confrontation Opens a New Era

• CommentaryMiddle East and North Africa
  by Sara Bazoobandi

After decades of proxy war, Iran and Israel have now stepped into a new phase of direct confrontation on April 14th. Iran launched hundreds of drones and missiles on Israel, which Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have, in collaboration with western and regional allies, successfully intercepted before they reached Israeli air space. The attack was a successful experience for Iran, even though very limited damaged occurred. Not only it provided a unique opportunity for the Iranian government to test its warfare against Israel, but also it demonstrated Iran's determination to take the crisis to a different level by directly attacking Israel. In light of these developments, a crucial question arises: how far might this escalation extend?

From the Israeli point of view, given the overall security conditions and the challenging reality of the region after the October attacks, an intensifying move seems to be the inevitable. From Tel Aviv's viewpoint, a response to Iran appears inevitable, although the specifics regarding timing and scale remain uncertain. The United States (US) urged Israeli government to 'take the win' and deescalate, and not let seeking a revenge blind the strategic planning. For Israel, however, the scale of the operation by Iran was beyond a tit-for-tat. Sending more than 300 flying weapons that were designed to kill Israel's citizens and to destroy its infrastructure, was a clear message from Tehran: 'the rule of the game has changed'. Further, shortly after Iran declared the end of its operation, the Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) announced that they would now respond with force to Israel anytime Iranian interests or assets are attacked. Iran's new rule for hostility towards Israel will not remain unanswered and will also have a wide impact, not only on the two countries involved in this escalatory spiral, but also for their international allies.

From Tehran's point of view, this was an opportunity to demonstrate ideological commitment to destruction of Israel in front of both friends and foes. Since the early days after the Islamic Revolution, Iran has rejected the state of Israel's right to exist. As such, in all official documents, political discourse, media, and across all levels of education curriculum in Iran, Israel is referred to as 'the Occupying Zionist Entity'. The founder of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini founded the tradition of 'al-Quds International Day' in 1979, as a symbol for the commitment of post-Revolutionary Iran, to eradicate Israel and liberate Palestine. The common practices of flag burning and slogans that call for death to Israel, have also contributed to the ideological framing of the Iranian government for many decades. As the drones and missiles were on their way to Israeli air space, the Commander of the IRGC's Aerospace Force, the branch of the Guards that oversaw the attack on Israel, shared verses of Quran on his social media account on X to signal the IRGC's claim for taking the moral high ground.

April 14th was also a great show of unity across the factions and institutions within Iranian political system. The IRGC's official communication, that announced the attack on Israel stated that the decision was approved by the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC). According to the Iranian government, the SNSC is representative of all major state institutions. The Iranian policy-makers have frequently argued that the ideological frame of thought and strategic thinking of the political elite is not monolithic. This claim has created an understanding, mostly amongst the western policy makers, that while the reformist and pragmatist camps are in favour of normalising Iran's relations with the world, the conservatives oppose them and indeed actively seek to undermine their effort. In this argument, the SNSC is portrayed as the 'consensus making' body that is brining all stakeholders across various government organisations. Although, and according to the Iranian Constitution, decisions made by the Council may only be executed if they are approved by the Supreme Leader, that fundamentally undermines its consensus building function. However, assuming that SNSC's approval is an indicator for internal consensus, the attack on Israel was indeed unchallenged by key decision makers in the Council and approved by the Supreme Leader.

There has been some speculation about the reasons behind Iran's decision to announce the attack in advance, and the fact that it was started with slower flying drones. Indeed, Tehran may have been motivated by the face-saving outcome of its decision too. After the killing of the senior IRGC officials in Damascus on April 1st, the Iranian government was keen on showing off its power and willingness in front of its friends and foes. Indeed, it was important for Iran to take an action that could persuade not only the domestic constituents, but also its multiple militia groups across the region. Despite the clear military supremacy of Israel against Iran, which is reflected in technological advancement and capabilities possessed by Israel and its international allies, the Iranian government was keen to offer a full display of its willingness to confront Israel directly.

The consequences of Iran's April 14^th attack are not easy to navigate for policy makers and analysts across the world. Though, the extent of Israel's response will be a key factor in shaping future events. The United States may indeed be keen on a de-escalation, but if a direct confrontation breaks out between Iran and Israel, it will not stand back and watch. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu enjoys being in the driving seat in this crisis, even if it means lockingthe US in an unwanted war against Iran. A prominent figure in the Israeli security community, Benny Ganz, has recently stated that Israel will seek to build a regional coalition. This may not be easy to achieve in the current climate, given the Arab world's position on the war in Gaza. Both Iran and Israel are seeking measures to demonstrate their own military edge and restore deterrence. However, the ultimate losers of this show of power are the people of the region, particularly the Iranians. Suffering under the weight of economic hardship exacerbated by government's corruption and misguidedpolicy choices from one side and sanctions from the other, after April 14th, the Iranians will be looking anxiously to the country's future in the hand of the country's oppressive leaders.