Editor’s Note
The world awaits the Israeli response to the Iranian onslaught with approximately 180 missiles only recently. In fact, what has held Netayanehu back so far is itself a wonder. Iran continues to dither between adequate aggression against Israel to retain its position in the Islamic world, while at the same time moderating its response to not provoke too intense an Israeli backlash that pulverizes its economy and military strength.
The fierce Israeli response to the Hamas brutality of the October 7 attack continues and is being immeasurably felt by all stakeholders as the fear of the conflict spiralling out of control increases by the day. The adverse impact of a larger conflict on humanitarian, social, religious and economic matters is unsettling. What is at stake for those involved and to what extremities each one of them is willing to, or is forced to go, is where the answer lies to the future of this conflict.
Israel, from its standpoint, has no option but to make the future safe for its land and citizens and can leave no stone unturned to eradicate the threat posed by the sinister members of Iran-backed Mehvar-e-Moqavemat or Axis of Resistance. Having encountered numerous wars and conflicts since its inception, Israel now stands at the crossroads where its future course of action shall define its safety as a nation-state. Compromise of any nature, in the backdrop of the regenerative nature of the religiously oriented hostility towards it, places a predicament of where to stop, a catch-22 of the most intriguing kind.
The recent Hezbollah drone strikes and Iran’s missile barrage would surely have put the Israeli residents at unease and added pressure on its government for an early resolution. A military mind is well aware of the fact that irrespective of the technology used and immense combat capabilities of the Israelis, it was impossible to prevent 100 per cent of the Iranian missiles. As such, some missiles had gone through the multi-layered air defence system, and the resultant damages had to be borne by Israelis. However, this is perceived as a failure by the citizenry and sets in motion a psychosis of vulnerability and fear, thereby adding to the challenges the political leadership faces.
Netanyahu, however, has been and remains a strong proponent of neutralising the Iran Nexus. The challenges in expanding the conflict would increase the vulnerability of its population, causing further losses to be highly critical.
Adding to the complexities are the American stance or support to Israel which surely is with caveats: one school of thought suggests that USA is not in favour of Iran’s neutralisation that would render Israel all powerful in the region. The degree and nature of US support, and its potential impact on Israel’s power, is also contingent to who becomes the next President. Finally, the economics of sustaining the high-tempo of military actions is of concern despite the financial might and support.
The biggest criticality in the current Middle East crises is for the Crusaders of Islam, as the success or failure of its ‘fighters’ directly impacts their credibility amongst the followers. The very survival of the ‘Axis of Resistance’ is dependent on their retention of their standing in the Islamic world, for they are seen as the ‘fighters’ of Allah, crusading to save the followers and expounding Muhammad’s prophecies.
Israel’s relentless offensive has pushed the militant groups and their supporters to the brink. The recent elimination of important Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, with the last one being the neutralisation of Yahya Sinwar, has dealt a severe blow to the Axis of Resistance for the time being. The signs of criticality are evident in the willingness for a truce, which understandably is being suffixed by threats, for creating the right narrative for the Islamic world. It’s, however, important to note that the regenerative nature of the Ulema-driven Pan-Islamic support facilitates withdrawals in the face of adversities in the physical domain to fight another day, as the idea still lives. It is also pertinent to note that all Hamas chiefs prior to Sinwar had been eliminated, and it is an acceptable norm as part of Shahadat – a suitable replacement will emerge.
Iran, reeling under sanctions coupled with the Israeli threat to Kharg Island and the Nuclear facilities, has a crisis at hand as any dilution of support to her crusaders opposing Israel in an attempt to save the economic and nuclear interests will be a major setback for it in the Islamic world. The military capabilities and Russian support notwithstanding, Iran has to take a call. Also, Lebanon, in the wake of death and destruction, faces the probability of civil unrest led by the non-Muslim religious groups, who are forced to abide by the Hezbollah diktats. Some groups in Lebanon had openly celebrated the killing of Nasrallah.
No one in the world imagined that Israelis would push the envelope to the present state that has the backs of all stakeholders against the wall. How far the conflict will be pursued directly depends on Netanyahu as he has been a strong proponent of completely neutralising the Axis of Resistance and, to that end, intends to push for Iran’s decimation by creating situations that force the USA to assist effectively in doing so. The silver lining for him is that the moderates of the Arab World may not be opposed to the neutralisation of Ali Hosseini Khamenei-led Iranian regime in favour of a reasonably moderate setup.
For Israel, the option of continuing its onslaught remains, albeit at an immense human and economic cost. Eliminating the Axis of Resistance is not possible, and the probability of resurgence remains. Hence, the option available to Israel is to neutralise enemy capabilities, both militarily and economically, to levels where resurgence becomes difficult in the near future. For the time being, Israel will likely continue operations, and the only lid that can be put on it is with the Americans, which in itself is complicated in the wake of their presidential elections due shortly. The chatter from other nations or organisations in support or against either side is agenda-driven and has little or no bearing on the end state of this conflict.
Lt Gen Vijay Singh (Retired)
