UPSC Editorial

Back

General Studies 2 >> International Relations

EDITORIAL ANALYSIS: A three-dimensional view of the Israel-Iran crisis
A three-dimensional view of the Israel-Iran crisis 
 
 
Source: The Hindu
 
 
For Prelims:  Israel-Iran crisis, The Israel-Palestine conflict,  Hamas 
 
For Mains: General Studies II- A three-dimensional view of the Israel-Iran crisis
 
 
Highlights of the Article
 
Balancing Regional Conflicts and US Interests
A Shift in Iran's Strategy
Israel-Iran crisis
The Israel-Palestine conflict
 
Context
 
Recently, Iran launched a massive missile and drone attack on Israel, shattering decades of deterrence. This unprecedented act by a state actor crossed a red line for Israel. Despite the attack, the US restrained Israel's response, leading some to call it weak. This incident highlights Iran's growing boldness, America's strategic hesitation, and Israel's heavy reliance on US security.
 
 
UPSC EXAM NOTES ANALYSIS
 
 
1. Balancing Regional Conflicts and US Interests
 
 
Preventing Escalation in the Israel-Hamas Conflict
  • Since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2024, the primary focus of the US administration has been to prevent the Israel-Hamas conflict from escalating into a larger regional war.
  • The USA expressed its full support for Israel's military operation in Gaza, while simultaneously initiating diplomatic efforts to maintain low tensions between Israel and its neighbouring countries. However, this approach encountered two significant challenges.
1. Although the Biden administration successfully maintained stable ties between Israel and Arab nations, it had limited influence over Iran.
2. Israel waged its war on two fronts - one in Gaza and the other in its surrounding region, where it aimed to counter Iranian influence. Consequently, the possibility of an Israel-Iran confrontation emerged.
 
US Intervention Averts Iran-Israel Confrontation
 
  • The bombing of the Iranian embassy compound in Damascus by Israel on April 1, 2024, which resulted in the deaths of senior Revolutionary Guard officers, made this scenario even more plausible.
  • The United States was aware that Iran would retaliate and deliberately leaked this intelligence to the press recognising that if Iran executed a successful attack and Israel responded, it would inevitably lead to a regional war that the United States could not afford to stay out of.
  • Engaging in a war with Iran and its proxies would not align with America's interests, as it has other pressing strategic priorities in Eastern Europe and the Indo-Pacific.
  • Consequently, the United States and its allies worked together to intercept the majority of Iranian projectiles, preventing a catastrophe on Israeli soil.
  • President Biden then conveyed to Prime Minister Netanyahu that the United States would not participate in any Israeli retaliation against Iran. Washington's message was clear: de-escalation was imperative.
 
The Shadow War Between Israel and Iran
 
  • For years, a covert conflict has been ongoing between Israel and Iran.
  • Israel has conducted more than 400 airstrikes in Syria alone, specifically targeting Iranian interests.
  • It has also carried out operations within Iran, including the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a prominent nuclear scientist, in November 2020.
  • These actions have been relatively consequence-free for Israel, as Iran has not responded forcefully, thereby bolstering Israel's confidence. In essence, Israel has continued its operations unabated.
 
Israel's Dilemma After the Iranian Retaliation
 
  • Israel has intensified its covert operations since October 7, culminating in the assassination of Sayyed Razi Mousavi, a high-ranking adviser of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in Syria.
  • In response, Iran's reaction remained subdued. However, when Israeli intelligence discovered the presence of Mohammed Reza Zahedi, a prominent IRGC commander, in the embassy compound in Damascus, they proceeded with the strike.
  • Israeli officials later revealed to American media that they did not anticipate a direct retaliatory attack from Iran following the strike in Damascus.
 
Iran's Limited Options and a Symbolic Response
 
  • This retaliatory action by Iran has presented a dilemma for Iran and it has consistently advocated for a forceful approach towards Tehran. Many argued that the Iranian attack provided him with a perfect opportunity to strike back hard against the Mullahs.
  • However, the strategic circumstances surrounding Iran's strike were not conducive to its preferences. While favoured using force against Iran plan had always relied on the involvement and support of the United States.
  • Yet the U.S. would not participate in Israel's retaliation, significantly limiting Netanyahu's options. He could have still proceeded to test America's willingness to abstain from direct conflict between Israel and Iran.
  • However, Israel's ongoing conflict in Gaza remained unresolved, and it sought continued support from Biden in its offensive.
  • Consequently, Iran opted for a predominantly symbolic strike inside Iran, reportedly targeting a radar system, without even claiming responsibility for the attack. This represented a rare victory for the US, as it managed to restrain its ally and avert a regional war. However, from an Israeli perspective, this response was perceived as weak and did little to enhance its deterrence capabilities.
 
2.  A Shift in Iran's Strategy

Strategic Patience

  • The Ayatollah's strategic calculations have been evident in Iran's approach towards its conflict with Israel.
  • Despite suffering losses in terms of senior officers and scientists, Iran has maintained its influence in the region and continued to expand its nuclear program.
  • However, the recent bombing of its embassy annexed by Israel has prompted Tehran to retaliate and impose costs on Israeli strikes.
  • This shift in strategy can be attributed to various factors, including Iran's strengthened ties with Russia and China.
  • While the relationship with China is primarily economic, the partnership with Russia has become more complex, especially with Iran providing drones to Russia for combat purposes.
  • Additionally, Iran has recognized the reluctance of the U.S. to engage in prolonged conflicts in the Middle East, especially with China and Russia challenging American global leadership.

Trigger for Change

  • In West Asia, Israel's efforts to dismantle Hamas, release hostages, and strengthen its deterrence have fallen short after six months of fighting.
  • The Israeli military's use of excessive force in Gaza has destroyed northern and central Gaza, causing the loss of 34,000 lives, and the displacement of the majority of Gaza's population, leading to widespread international condemnation.
  • The International Court of Justice is currently examining a genocide case against Israel. Iran perceives that Israel's position in the region has been significantly weakened due to the October 7 attack and subsequent conflict in Gaza, taking advantage of the perceived decline in the United States' unwavering security commitments.
  • Consequently, Iran has seized the opportunity to openly target Israel, despite the collective defence efforts of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Jordan, and Israel. Regrettably, some Iranian ballistic missiles have still managed to strike Israel proper.
 
Israel's Response
  • Israel's restrained response and its decision not to take responsibility for the attack, coupled with the West's plea for caution, indicate that Iran's assessment of the risks involved was fairly accurate.
  • This is likely to empower Tehran further. Currently, Iran stands as the sole nation in West Asia to have conducted missile and drone strikes against the United States and two of its closest allies.
  • In 2019, drones targeted two Saudi Arabian oil facilities, causing a significant reduction in the kingdom's oil production for several days.
  • In 2020, Iran retaliated against the killing of General Qassem Soleimani by launching 12 ballistic missiles at the As-Assad air base in Iraq. Furthermore, Iran attacked Israel.
  • In all three instances, Iran faced minimal consequences or received only a symbolic punishment, which reflects the evolving strategic dynamics in West Asia.
 
3. Israel-Iran crisis
 

The Israel-Iran crisis refers to the ongoing tensions and conflicts between the state of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This crisis has multiple dimensions, including geopolitical rivalries, ideological differences, and military confrontations. 

  • Israel and Iran are regional rivals with conflicting geopolitical interests. Iran seeks to expand its influence in the Middle East, particularly through support for proxy groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, both of which are hostile to Israel. Israel, on the other hand, perceives Iran's growing influence as a threat to its security and seeks to counter it.
  • Israel is a predominantly Jewish state, while Iran is an Islamic republic led by Shia Muslim clerics. The two countries have different ideological orientations and often clash over issues related to religion, governance, and regional influence.
  • Iran's nuclear program has been a major point of contention between the two countries. Israel views Iran's nuclear ambitions as an existential threat and has repeatedly warned against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. In response, Iran insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, but Israel remains sceptical.
  • There have been several incidents of direct and indirect military confrontations between Israel and Iran, primarily through proxy groups. Israel has carried out airstrikes targeting Iranian interests in Syria, Lebanon, and other neighbouring countries. Iran, in turn, has supported armed groups that have launched attacks against Israel, including rocket attacks from Gaza and Hezbollah's activities in Lebanon.
  • The ongoing tensions between Israel and Iran have raised concerns about the potential for escalation into a wider conflict. Both countries possess significant military capabilities, including advanced weaponry and missile systems. Any direct confrontation between them could have serious regional and global implications, potentially drawing in other countries and destabilizing the entire Middle East region.
 
4. The Israel-Palestine conflict
 
 
The Israel-Palestine conflict traces its roots back to the Balfour Declaration in 1917 when British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour expressed official support for a Jewish "national home" in Palestine. This declaration laid the foundation for the competing claims and tensions between Arabs and Jews in the region.
  • In 1948, Britain withdrew its forces from Palestine due to the escalating violence between Arabs and Jews. The responsibility for resolving the conflict was then handed over to the newly created United Nations. The UN presented a partition plan to create independent Jewish and Arab states in Palestine, but this plan was rejected by most Arab nations.
  • The declaration of Israel's independence by the Jewish community in 1948 led to an attack by surrounding Arab states, resulting in the Arab-Israel War. At the end of the war, Israel controlled a larger territory than originally envisioned by the UN partition plan.
  • The UN partition plan had designated Jordan to control the West Bank and Jerusalem's holy sites, while Egypt was given control over the Gaza Strip. However, this plan did not fully address the Palestinian crisis, leading to the formation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964. The PLO aimed to free Palestine from Israeli control and establish the dominance of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world. In 1975, the United Nations granted the PLO observer status and recognized the Palestinians' right to self-determination.
  • The Six-Day War in 1967 resulted in Israeli forces seizing the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt. This further complicated the conflict and added to the territorial disputes. 
  • In 1978, the Camp David Accords, brokered by the United States, aimed to establish a framework for peace in the Middle East and resolve the Palestinian problem. However, the full implementation of these accords remained unfulfilled.
  • The emergence of Hamas in 1987 added another dimension to the conflict. Hamas, a violent offshoot of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, sought to fulfil its agenda through violent jihad. It is regarded as a terrorist organization.
 
5. Conclusion
 
The repercussions of ongoing instability in the Middle East extend to different parts of the world. Therefore, the international community must urge all parties to refrain from violence and prioritize diplomatic negotiations for solutions. Embracing responsible and balanced policies is imperative to prevent long-term instability and alleviate the region's crisis.
 
 
Mains Pratice Questions
 
1. Analyze the historical roots of the Israel-Palestine conflict and its impact on regional stability. Discuss the challenges and prospects for a lasting peace agreement. (250 Words)
2. Discuss the potential consequences of an escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict for the security architecture of the Middle East. How can regional powers be incentivized to cooperate and prevent a wider war?  (250 Words)
3. Discuss the challenges and potential solutions for achieving a lasting peace settlement between Israel and Palestine. What role can India play in this peace process? (250 words)
4. Can the use of military force ever be justified in the pursuit of national security? Discuss the ethical implications of the recent Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets in Syria. (250 words)
 
 
 

Share to Social