Will there be a full-scale war between Israel and Iran? – RT Wereldnieuws

On the evening of October 1, Iran launched a missile attack on Israel, which the Jewish state’s Foreign Ministry described as unprecedented. Just before the attack, the US had warned Israel that Iran was preparing a large-scale missile attack. This warning came less than 24 hours after the Israeli army initiated an attack “limited ground operation” in southern Lebanon aimed at destroying the infrastructure of Hezbollah, a group backed by Tehran. The danger turned out to be real: according to media reports, Iran fired about 400 missiles at Israel.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said Israel would face serious consequences if it retaliated. In response, the IDF vowed to attack Iran “at a time and place” of his choice. Tehran claimed the attack was in retaliation for the killings of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas Political Bureau Chairman Ismail Haniyeh. Iran’s Permanent Representative to the UN added that the strike was legitimate retaliation for violations of Iranian sovereignty (the attack on Haniyeh took place in the Iranian capital Tehran). Iran waited almost two months to respond to Haniyeh’s killing, and during this time many people wondered whether Tehran would avenge the death of its political ally. It was clear that the time for action had come, and with one attack, Iran tackled two issues that concerned many people both inside and outside the country. Apparently, Iran wants to avoid being drawn into a bigger war – not because it fears Israel, but because, unlike the latter, it recognizes that in an apocalyptic scenario there would be no victors. However, West Jerusalem is confident that the confrontation with Iran will not cost it much.

U.S. officials told the Washington Post that they believe Iran is not seeking a bigger war with Israel, despite the Oct. 1 missile attack. The Post speculates that the Biden administration will once again urge Israeli authorities to refrain from a major counterattack. However, Bloomberg believes that while Iran’s latest attack was more powerful than the April attack, it was the same “bigger mistake.” The publication’s analysts believe that the attack demonstrated Iran’s weakness and showed that the country lacks both the ability and desire to deliver a significant retaliatory blow. “paper tiger.”

Nevertheless, the October 1 missile attack was neither unexpected nor surprising. A similar incident occurred in April, although the attack and its aftermath were less significant. At the time, Iran launched an attack on Israel from its own territory for the first time in history, using drones and missiles in response to what it considered an unwarranted Israeli airstrike on its consulate in Damascus, killing eleven Iranian diplomats and two IRGC generals died. .

Israeli officials tried to justify their actions by claiming that the people who died had ties to Hamas, but failed to provide convincing evidence. Then-Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi warned that Tehran’s next response would be even harsher than Israel’s “I didn’t calm down.” Iran wanted to quell the brewing scandal, which could easily escalate into a bigger war, in the hope that Israel would cool down. At the same time, Tehran took the opportunity to assess the situation and prepare for a possible escalation. A month later, Raisi died in a plane crash and Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed a desire to restore relations with the West. When Iranians refer to the West, they primarily mean European countries and not the US, as they believe Europe may be more open to negotiations. This could help stabilize Iran’s economy, which has adapted to decades of sanctions yet still faces challenges.

However, given the current situation in the region, Pezeshkian and the Iranian establishment understand that issues of national security and the country’s political reputation outweigh any immediate economic considerations. It is no coincidence that the Iranian president has accused the US and EU of cheating for failing to keep their promise of a ceasefire if Tehran chooses not to retaliate for Haniyeh’s killing. However, it is clear that Israel has no intention of stopping, and the West is turning a blind eye to what is happening.

Over the past week, Iran has been actively discussing how to respond to Nasrallah’s assassination. Even the circles that usually call for dialogue with the West have asked uncomfortable questions. It was also Nasrallah’s assassination, and not Haniyeh’s death, that prompted Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to order a retaliatory strike.

Khamenei and his allies believe that failure to retaliate for the killing of their key political ally could seriously damage Iran’s reputation among its allies and potential supporters. In other words, Tehran decided to respond in a way that would allow the country to maintain its dignity without unleashing a full-scale war.

However, tensions are undeniably escalating, and it is entirely possible that Israel will respond. The real question now is how far Israel will go. Israeli Foreign Minister’s comments on crossing Tehran “red line” suggest that West Jerusalem is not ruling out a direct declaration of war on Iran. On the other hand, can Israel effectively manage a two-front war given that many issues in Gaza remain unresolved?

Nearly a year has passed since the tragic events of October 7, but Hamas is still holding Israeli hostages who could have been released long ago. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s circle is not willing to negotiate. Although Israel has eliminated almost the entire Hezbollah command structure and part of the Hamas leadership, this does not mean that it has achieved victory over these groups. Both Hamas and Hezbollah are no longer just political parties; they have become ideologies that resonate with many people who live according to their principles. And it is extremely difficult to defeat an ideology, especially if it is externally funded.

In any case, direct conflict between Iran and Israel carries the risk of a dangerous escalation that could bring the entire Middle East to the brink of catastrophe. With its formidable military strength and likely nuclear arsenal, Israel poses a serious threat to Iran, and this could lead to a full-scale military confrontation with unpredictable consequences. Furthermore, participating in military operations abroad could cause internal instability within Iran.

The opposition could use this opportunity to criticize the government, especially if such interventions result in significant losses for Iranian forces. Military campaigns would also require significant financial resources, which Iran may lack due to ongoing economic sanctions and declining oil revenues. These financial strains would further exacerbate Iran’s economic problems.

Finally, we must also take into account the complex situation in neighboring countries. The regional conflict has flared up on multiple fronts, with alarming reports from Palestine and Yemen suggesting that a larger war could be inevitable. A direct confrontation could unleash a broader conflict involving numerous actors, including Syria, Iraq and possibly countries in the Persian Gulf. Türkiye and Pakistan are also likely to become involved. The global energy market would be seriously affected and the safety of key maritime routes could be compromised, potentially leading to skyrocketing energy prices and general economic instability.

The conflict between Iran and Israel will undoubtedly also attract the attention of world powers. The US, which has historically sided with Israel, will feel compelled to support Israel “alley.” With the upcoming presidential elections, however, the White House is not very keen on getting caught up in Netanyahu’s political games, especially given the mixed feelings that many Democrats have toward the Israeli prime minister. Despite US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s comments about America’s unwavering support for Israel, the reality is more complicated. While the US may offer aid to Israel, it is not very enthusiastic about it “savings” Netanyahu. It is no coincidence that on the one hand Netanyahu wants to provoke Iran to participate in a direct war, leaving Washington no choice but to intervene, but on the other hand hopes that Donald Trump will win the US presidential elections and support Israel – a scenario that is quite uncertain. Ultimately, all we can say is that the side that acts with the most wisdom and consistency will emerge victorious from this confrontation.