Iran vs Israel: As red lines are crossed, lessons to be learnt

A flashing red line has been crossed, and a spiral of escalation seems imminent. Iran’s first ever missile and drone attack on Israel might have had catastrophic consequences for the tiny sliver of territory that is Israel. This time, however, it seems to have been effectively defended against, making another ‘first’ for warfare in this or any other region.

The reactions to this from allies and enemies show not just deep divisions on the issue but a very real desire not to create an escalation spiral that could involve other nuclear powers in and out of the region.

The offence is still in the lead

The fact that Iran would react to the targeting of its mission in Damascus, which killed 13, including seven  senior military officials, was a given. After all,that’s sovereign Iranian territory, and it did react with plenty of warning in terms of its intention of  launching a reported 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 110 ballistic missiles from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria.

More from Opinion

Sergio Gor’s senate hearing signals the future of Indo-American ties How Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ buildup against Venezuela has a hidden agenda

None of the first reached Israel, and a few of the latter did. The formidable defence was spearheaded by the US, Israel, France, the UK, and Jordan, adding up to a total of nine countries involved.

The highest success in defence seems to have been against those aerial vehicles using a flat trajectory, like drones and cruise missiles. UK RAF Typhoons were said to have been involved, as were the US’s F-15E’s squadrons operating from unknown bases. The US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that it had successfully engaged 80 UAV attacks and six ballistic missiles. This may be a spectacular success for the Iron Dome Israel missile defence system. Well, almost.  Reportage indicates that while Iran used its plentifully available cheaper drones, it did not field its  jet-powered drones, in a move that suggests the massive attack was a show of strength rather than deliberate warfare (though it did strike the important Nevatim air base). And all in all, the defence was a lot more expensive than the offense. It seems it’s still an advantage since Teheran sent the message it wanted.

Reactions are divided down the middle

Its position was made clear by its mission to the United Nations in a  statement where it upheld its right to ‘self defence’ under Article 51 of the UN Charter, with the  Ambassador stating that the attack “…was precise and only targeted military objectives, and carried out carefully to minimise the potential for escalation and prevent civilian harm”.  It deemed the whole thing to be ‘concluded’. That was a message to show that it wanted no escalation. It also pointed out that the country had waited 13 days for the US Security Council to act and only carried out the attack thereafter. Much of this fell on deaf ears.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How army remains Pakistan’s biggest business house

60 years on, why 1965 India–Pakistan war still matters

The  G7 condemned Teheran’s action and declared full support for Israel. Japan was  fulsome in its condemnation of Iran earlier in an  address to Congress, appreciating the “loneliness and exhaustion of being the country that has upheld the international order almost singlehandedly". France, as always, has been more circumspect,  urging Israel to resist retaliation. German chancellor Scholz, in China for an unusually long visit with a huge delegation, like Japan, weighed in on Israel’s side. Bonn faced economic realities, reversed its decision to break free of ‘market dependencies ‘ on China, and is unlikely to want an oil crisis, with its oil import bill rising  77.4 per cent last year.

The US, despite declaring—in a manner rather echoing the China-Pakistan relationship—its ‘ironclad’ commitment to Israel’s defence, deliberately  leaked excerpts of a conversation between President Biden and the Israeli prime minister, revealing that it would not support escalation.

US envoy Robert Wood echoed the Iranian Ambassador in saying that Washington is not seeking an escalation with Tehran but issued a warning that “if Iran or its proxies take actions against the United States or further action against Israel, Iran will be held responsible". That may be a line in the sand.

The Global South takes a view

The Global South had quite a different view, and nowhere was it more apparent than at the emergency meeting of the  Security Council requested urgently by Israel, where the US and its allies were at one in condemning Iran, the Republic of Korea, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Algeria, Ecuador, and Guyana, among others, and warned against accelerating the spiral of violence in the region, calling on all parties to exercise the utmost restraint.

Separately, the Saudis and Egypt have both expressed ‘deep concern’, with both seeing this as an escalation of the Gaza conflict. Also,  Bangladesh, struggling to pay for oil imports, called on all countries to weigh in to stop tensions.   Indonesia, with strong ties to Iran, wants the United Nations Security Council to intervene to lower tensions, as did Malaysia. Much of South America, barring Argentina, also seemed tilted against Israel, with  Brazil, which had initially condemned the ‘terrorist’ attack by Hamas, later comparing the bombing of Gaza to the Holocaust, while Colombia tended to blame the US, warning of a World War III. Smaller European countries like Portugal and Spain also favour a Palestinian homeland, indicating how isolated Israel is becoming.

There is much for New Delhi to mull over in the aftermath of this attack. First, the war could be a lesson on the limitations of ‘shadow wars’ and the backing of non-state groups.

The international community, while calling for Israeli restraint, is also saying bluntly that any move by Iran to use its various proxy groups against any of them would invite retaliation. Whether Teheran chooses to regard this as a warning worth heeding is unclear. At any rate, there is no likelihood of its peripheral teams, like the Houthis, choosing to stand down. What lies ahead is going to be a pointer to the limitations of using proxies.

Second, Iran, though choosing to cross a red line, has done so with a deliberate holding back of its power, also sending a signal of its growing power in the region. That means the definition of  ‘power’ may need to be redefined, away from the high tech, hard power, high GDP nomenclature that it is associated with.

Third, the apparent victory of the defence in an admittedly low tech missile war needs close examination in terms of India’s own acquisition of Israeli and Russian defence systems and possible upgrades.

Four, India’s recent thrust towards ‘dialogue and diplomacy’, with NSA Ajit Doval in dialogue with his counterpart in Israel, as well as Delhi’s backing for a  Palestinian homeland with External Affairs Minister Jaishankar strongly backing international humanitarian law even in reacting to terrorism, all bring it closer to the view of the Global South.

All of that worsens a growing divide between the West and the rest, in terms of how to react not just to wars themselves but to the growing economic costs that hurt all concerned, including the ‘rich’ countries. The vote is clear. Everyone has had enough, probably including the main combatants. In sum, it’s time to shake out the peace initiatives and bring out the conflict resolution handbooks. In case anyone has not noticed, all that has been in extremely short supply.

The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi. She tweets @kartha_tara. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.