The recent aerial assault conducted by Israeli forces upon the consulate of the Islamic Regime in Damascus, transpiring on Monday, the 1st of April 2024, resulted in the death of seven IRGC military advisors, among whom were three senior commanders. This occurrence unfolded within the volatile context that characterises the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict. Consequently, heightened apprehensions have emerged concerning the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, as well as Iran's relations with the broader Western sphere. Of particular concern is the contravention of both the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Convention by the Israeli strike. Yet, the conspicuous absence of condemnation from Western governments and the United Nations Security Council in response to this breach is indicative of a lack of respect for Iran, perceived more as provocation than prudent diplomacy. Especially notable is the condescending rhetoric employed by Western governments, which issues directives and warnings to the Islamic Regime, explicitly instructing it 'not to retaliate against Israel', rather than adopting a more diplomatic approach of 'urging restraint'. This coercive tone may inadvertently compel the regime to respond, thereby exacerbating tensions further.

 

Notwithstanding, the airstrike has elucidated two crucial dynamics necessitating meticulous scrutiny and strategic assessment within the sphere of geopolitical discourse. This article endeavours to dissect these dynamics and offer insights into potential actions the Islamic regime may contemplate in response to the attack.

 

Crucial Dynamics

Principally, the Israeli offensive underscores Tel Aviv's heightened engagement with the regime's forces in Syria, reflecting a strategic move aimed at provoking Tehran into direct confrontation.

 

Manifestly, the Netanyahu government, confronted with widespread international condemnation following the Gaza incursion and a notable death toll exceeding 30,000, notably comprising nearly 14,000 children, has drawn ire from global communities. Despite this, numerous Western governments have opted to overlook these actions, a position that many argue warrants classification as genocidal war crimes. Furthermore, preceding the consulate attack, Israeli citizens have articulated dissatisfaction with the Netanyahu administration's handling of the economy. Concurrently, Netanyahu's political standing has plummeted to an unprecedented nadir during his premiership, with mounting calls for his removal from power. Therefore, to address this predicament, there is a perception that instigating a new conflict with Iran serves as a strategy to divert attention and alleviate political repercussions. Additionally, this approach aims to shift the portrayal of the Netanyahu government from that of an aggressor to that of a victim. Not to mention, it is imperative for Israel to strategically compel the current US administration to relinquish the Sullivan Doctrine, thereby aligning its actions with the principles delineated in the Begin Doctrine. This strategic manoeuvre is indispensable in thwarting Iran's trajectory towards nuclear capability. However, it is entirely conceivable that such a course of action may now be perceived as belated by some observers.

 

The Conundrum of the Islamic Regime

In the first, hypothetical scenario depicting a confrontation between Israel and Iran, it is imperative to acknowledge Israel's formidable military prowess, characterised by advanced technological capabilities and well-contextualised training protocols. Within this context, Israel's air force emerges as a potent force, notably equipped with sophisticated aircraft exemplified by the US F-35, renowned for its state-of-the-art features and combat capabilities. The deployment of such advanced aircraft not only amplifies Israel's aerial supremacy but also fortifies its reconnaissance and strike capabilities, facilitating pinpoint strikes against high-value targets within Iran's borders. However, a notable impediment to their deployment, as asserted by numerous observers and military analysts, lies in the notable distance separating Israel from Iran and the logistical challenge of refuelling. Nonetheless, Israel has devised a solution for this predicament, often overlooked, namely its trio of sophisticated German made Dolphin-class submarines. In June 2002, former officials from the U.S. State Department and Pentagon corroborated the US Navy's observation of Israeli missile trials in the Indian Ocean in 2000. Additionally, it was affirmed that the Dolphin-class submarines have been outfitted with nuclear-capable cruise missiles featuring a novel design. These submarines are further distinguished by their AIP system, affording them the capability to navigate extremely quietly and remain submerged for up to a week in the Persian Gulf without resurfacing. Furthermore, the Iron Dome serves as a formidable deterrent against missile attacks, notablely impeding Islamic regime's ability to retaliate effectively.

 

However, it is paramount to recognise that mere military supremacy does not ensure triumph in contemporary warfare. Islamic Regime's strategic investments in asymmetric warfare assets, encompassing proxy forces and ballistic missile programmes, constitute formidable threats that could pose considerable challenges for Israel. While the Iron Dome missile defence systems undoubtedly exemplify Israel's capability to intercept and nullify incoming threats with notable precision and efficacy, it remains susceptible to potential saturation. The sheer volume of tens of thousands of missiles, launched from diverse directions, could conceivably overwhelm the Iron Dome's defensive capabilities, thereby exposing critical vulnerabilities within Israel's defensive infrastructure. Reports suggest that the Islamic regime has developed its hypersonic missile capable of reaching Israel in seven minutes. If this is in fact the case, it is conceivable that the regime is currently working on its stockpile. In such a scenario, the regime would not need to fire tens of thousands of missiles to neutralise Israel's Iron Dome. This possibility may be a motivating factor for Israel to push for a war now rather than face these weapons later on 'day zero', especially if they are armed with nuclear warheads. Nevertheless, in such a dire scenario, where considerable damage to infrastructure and loss of lives is inflicted upon Israel, the likelihood of Israel resorting to the deployment of its nuclear arsenal becomes a grave consideration. Such an eventuality in the conflict between the two nations would undoubtedly carry profound regional and international ramifications, potentially catalysing the involvement of other stakeholders and precipitating a broader conflagration. The escalation to such an extent raises the ominous spectre of triggering a global conflict on the scale of World War III.

 

In the meanwhile, many observers may conclude that while the Islamic regime lacks the considerable military capability to defeat Israel outright in a full-scale war at this point in time, it relies on proxies in the region, notably Hezbollah. However, at present, the feasibility of mobilising such proxies appears improbable for the regime, as any such endeavour would likely prove futile. This circumstance suggests a prudent approach of reserving its forces for a prospective conflict with Israel or, essentially, mobilising resources from all flanks.

 

Therefore, whilst the Islamic regime may refrain from opting for a full-scale war with Israel, it is nonetheless compelled to forcefully respond due to two critical imperatives.

 

Firstly, the regime's international standing, especially among its proxies, has been tarnished, evidencing a perceived inability to defend itself effectively. Secondly, hardline supporters of the regime within Iran, although constituting a minority, anticipate a response; Failure to meet these expectations would in fact risk disillusionment and expose vulnerabilities. The recent Molotov cocktail attack on a mausoleum purportedly attributed to pseudo-historical figures Esther and Mordechai in Hamadan serves as a harbinger of such frustrations.

 

Consequently, it is conceivable that the firt scenario may arise wherein the regime initiates psychological warfare, thereby exemplifying the concept of 'reflexive control.' This strategy encompasses the creation of a perception of attacking Israel, whilst simultaneously evaluating responses. Such a textbook stratagem, characterised by the deliberate dissemination of provocative stimuli and disinformation, aims at manipulating an adversary's decision-making processes to contravene their strategic interests. This strategy operates via three tactical layers: firstly, 'distraction', involving the introduction of genuine or fabricated threats to divert Israel’s attention from critical objectives; secondly, 'splitting', which seeks to persuade Israel into actions detrimental to their allies' interests, particularly the US, hence fostering discord within opposing alliances; and finally, 'overload', whereby the Israelis are inundated with copious amounts of conflicting information, resulting in the overwhelm of their cognitive faculties.  Subsequently, following a period of intense psychological manoeuvring, which has ramifications extending beyond the region as it places global inflation under further pressure, Israel unwittingly finds itself inadvertently bolstering the Iranian economy by contributing to a surge in oil prices, potentially ascending to $100 per barrel. This economic windfall fortifies the financial standing of the Islamic regime, augmenting its resilience amidst economic challenges and amplifying its strategic manoeuvrability. Concomitantly, this manoeuvre precipitates a notable destabilisation of Israel’s fragile economic framework.

 

Following this period, when Israeli anticipation of retaliatory measures diminishes, the Islamic regime stands poised to enact reprisals, potentially targeting Israeli establishments dispersed across various regional territories, commencing with Iraqi Kurdistan. The semi-autonomous status and historical affinities of Iraqi Kurdistan with Iran furnish an auspicious setting for direct missile assaults, thereby expediting the endeavours of the Islamic Regime with minimal impediments.

 

This strategic modus operandi affords the regime the capacity to impart a resolute message to Israel whilst adeptly circumventing direct confrontation or escalation with prominent international stakeholders. Such a strategic approach is not devoid of risks. Targeting Israeli assets in Iraqi Kurdistan may heighten instability in Iraq and prompt international condemnation. However, the danger of abstaining from retaliation outweighs that of responding. In a bold manoeuvre, the regime may even contemplate targeting Israeli assets situated in the Republic of Azerbaijan or Israeli forces stationed in the Golan Heights, recognised under international law as an integral part of Syria, as a daring gesture. Additionally, it is conceivable that the Islamic regime may resort to clandestine terrorist activities targeting Israeli assets extending to Western countries, all the while orchestrating these manoeuvres in a manner designed to obfuscate Tehran's direct involvement.

 

Nonetheless, upon scrutinising the intricacies of diplomatic engagements with the Islamic regime in Iran, it becomes evident that it adheres to a discernible set of strategies, diverging from conventional norms whilst not entirely embodying an innovative paradigm.

 

Revisiting the events of January 2020, subsequent to the targeted assassination of Qasem Soleimani by the United States, the Islamic regime orchestrated a calculated offensive, launching more than 12 ballistic missiles at the US Airbases situated in Al Anbar and Erbil, Iraq. Termed 'Operation Martyr Soleimani' by the regime, this military display served as a grandiose spectacle aimed at bolstering its domestic and international standing. Notably, the coordination of this assault bore the hallmarks of a collaborative effort between the Islamic regime and the United States, strategically orchestrated to de-escalate tensions. Consequently, the potential for a recurrence of such events remains palpable.

 

Envisaging prospective scenarios, one contemplates the plausibility of a unilateral and calculated strike directly targeting Israeli territory, orchestrated with the intent of inflicting minimal damage or casualties. Such a tactical manoeuvre would serve a dual purpose: firstly, to assert Iran's military capabilities to both its allies and proxies, thereby reaffirming its status as a formidable force in the region. Secondly, it would aim to avoid instigating a full-scale war with Israel, a scenario that Iran, notwithstanding its relatively unsophisticated military apparatus, is judicious to evade, particularly in light of Israel's formidable military strength and the backing of a global superpower, particularly the United States, which serves Israel in a quasi-proxy capacity, akin to Hezbollah's relationship with Iran.

 

Yet, this assertion bears considerable significance. Primarily, Israel has implemented a deterrence policy aimed at averting direct assaults, notably from the Islamic regime in Iran. Nevertheless, within this context, the decision to target the regime consulate might arguably constitute a pivotal error on the part of the Netanyahu administration. The ramifications of such an action could prove profound; even the impact of a solitary Iranian missile breaching Israeli borders could precipitate the dissolution of this policy. Consequently, the regime in Iran would be emboldened, devoid of apprehension regarding the initiation of further aggressive manoeuvres.

 

Secondly, should Israel respond to any possible attack as originally planned when striking the Islamic regime consulate in Damascus, it could provide Iran with a pretext to legitimise a nuclear programme, thereby arming the regime with nuclear weapons, a formidable arsenal with the capacity to entirely annihilate Israel. Notably, Israel is colloquially referred to as a 'one-bomb state,' underscoring the catastrophic potential of a single nuclear detonation in obliterating its existence. Moreover, such a scenario could compel other nations, notably the United States, as well as Russia and China, to become embroiled in a regional conflict, risking escalation into a global conflagration and consequently, World War III. Additionally, many of Israel's Arab neighbours, still nursing grievances from the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, may perceive an opportunity for vengeance.

 

Nonetheless, there are those who may argue against this scenario, suggesting its improbability on the basis that the Islamic regime would understand its potential to result in Iran's demise. However, these observers overlook the regime's complete disregard for the preservation of Iran and the Iranian nation. Furthermore, many fundamentalists within the regime including the IRGC hold the belief that instigating a third world war would herald the return of the messianic figure, 'Mahdi', thus fulfilling their apocalyptic aspirations.

 

 

Conclusion

Benjamin Netanyahu's relentless pursuit of power has cast an ominous shadow over Israel's future, intensifying the prevailing uncertainty as of 1st April 2024. The recent attack on the Islamic Regime consulate in Damascus threatens to ignite a full-blown conflict between Israel and Iran, heralding dire consequences for both nations, where victory is elusive for either side, as both would inevitably incur notable losses. This prospect is particularly alarming given Israel's limited landmass and relatively small population, which would likely face more severe repercussions compared to Iran. Iran's population, approximately ten times larger than that of Israel, is dispersed across a land area roughly sixty-seven times larger than Israel's. This stark contrast in population size and land area underscores the disproportionate impact a conflict would have on Israel, heightening concerns for the well-being of its nation and its existence as a country. Moreover, in the event of war with Iran, witnessing Israel crumbling to dust, Palestinians or even Israel's Arab neighbours will exploit the situation and engage in conflicts across every corner of Israel, potentially leading to atrocities surpassing even those of Hitler and the Holocaust.

 

Henceforth, while Israel may in fact possess formidable military capabilities and maintain unwavering confidence in its ability to deter adversaries, it is imperative to recognise the notable risks associated with deviating from a balanced perspective and becoming detached from reality by underestimating potential threats. Israel finds itself confronted by a multitude of adversaries while heavily reliant on a single ally for support. As succinctly articulated by the late Dr Henry Kissinger, 'It may be perilous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal,' a maxim evidenced by the historical events surrounding the Carter administration's involvement in the overthrow of the Imperial government and subsequent facilitation of the current despotic regime's rise to power in Iran in 1979. Consequently, while influential Israeli lobbying groups, such as AIPAC in the US, may wield notable sway over US foreign policy, to the extent that the US could be construed as a mere proxy, the scenario could potentially shift should the US find itself embroiled in a conflict instigated by Netanyahu's pursuit of power. This conjecture gains credence considering emerging sentiments, particularly among the younger Americas, evincing a diminishing tolerance for the unyielding support extended to Israel by their politicians. This trend, underscored by empirical data, underscores the potential volatility of the Israeli-American dynamic. In essence, the present dynamic between Israel and the US mirrors a toxic relationship reminiscent of a master-servant paradigm, with Israel occupying the role of the master. This metaphorical construct delineates a relationship characterised by asymmetrical power dynamics, wherein Israel's dominance is pronounced, engendering a dynamic fraught with implications for both parties.

 

Finally, despite the convictions of many Israeli hardliners, such as Netanyahu, that Israel's survival is contingent upon the existence of multiple adversaries, such a mindset is likely to prove detrimental in the long term, potentially leading to Israel's demise. Therefore, the sole viable trajectory for Israel's future prosperity lies in the pursuit of peace, particularly with a future democratic Iran. Consequently, it is in Israel's best interest to support Iranians in overthrowing the present regime, rather than resorting to warfare, which would only perpetuate animosity. Iranians harbour a profound reverence for their homeland, often referring to Iran as their 'Mother', a testament to the deep emotional attachment they hold. This sentiment transcends political affiliations, remaining unwavering even amidst disdain for despotic regimes. However, when Iranians perceive their nation to be imperilled by external threats, their loyalty becomes unyielding. It is this steadfast devotion that the regime strategically capitalises on to fortify its grip on power and ensure its survival amidst tumultuous circumstances. in fact, this rash move by Israel, instead of repelling danger, may inadvertently have fostered and attracted even more perilous adversaries for itself. Hence, should the rational minds within Israel opt to eschew Netanyahu's fear-mongering rhetoric and instead embrace a rational and politically astute approach, they would discern that any forthcoming response from the Islamic regime is unlikely to entail dire consequences. Rather, it is poised to be calibrated for internal exigencies and objectives. In navigating such circumstances, a measured response employing a tit-for-tat strategy is warranted, affording space for tensions to subside. It is imperative to underscore the prevailing incapacity of the regime in Tehran to inflict considerable harm upon Israel.

 

Shapour Suren-Pahlav

03 April 2024

 

Shortened link to the article: https://bit.ly/43YiBC8