There are few rivalries in our world as powerful and dangerous as that between Israel and Iran. The recent escalation of tensions between these two regional powers – as evidenced by Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus and Iran’s retaliatory drone and rocket attacks on Israel – has raised serious global concerns. Many around the world noted Iran’s statement that its military action was in response to Israeli aggression against its diplomatic facilities and that “the matter can be considered settled”. It is believed that if the flames of conflict in Gaza are allowed to continue to rage, the negative effects will spread and make the region even more unstable. The countries and peoples of the Middle East do not want and cannot afford a major conflict or war.
But with each passing day, the spectre of direct conflict grows, casting a shadow of uncertainty and tension over the entire region. In this volatile and unpredictable environment, the risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation increases, raising the possibility of further conflicts and crises with global repercussions, in which not only Western powers will be forced to intervene. If this powder keg escalates into open war, the consequences will reverberate far beyond the borders of the two countries, potentially setting off a chain of events and unintended consequences with catastrophic consequences. A direct war between Israel and Iran has the potential to alter the global geopolitical landscape in ways that are difficult to predict, with far-reaching negative consequences for world peace and stability.
The first and perhaps most immediate consequence of direct conflict between Iran and Israel would be the destabilisation of an already unstable Middle East. Both countries have significant influence over neighbouring states and non-state actors that could quickly be drawn into a war. Indirect conflicts, insurgencies and refugee crises are likely to escalate, exacerbating existing tensions and wreaking havoc across the region. The fragile balance of power in the Middle East could be upset, opening the door to a new era of uncertainty and violence.
Importantly, if the flames of war spread, innocent civilians will inevitably bear the brunt of the suffering. A conflict between Iran and Israel, with their advanced military capabilities and densely populated urban centres, will undoubtedly result in massive destruction and loss of life. The humanitarian toll would be staggering, with potentially millions of people displaced, injured or killed in the crossfire. Humanitarian agencies are likely to struggle to cope with the number of refugees and the huge demand for their assistance, exacerbating an already dire situation.
Iran also has the option of striking Israeli diplomatic facilities in a third country, perhaps in Africa, South America or Asia. This could be seen as a proportional response. But hitting Israeli diplomatic targets with Iranian missiles and drones, or using proxies in a covert operation, could be seen as too weak a military response and not enough to deter Israel from continuing to attack Iranian military targets in Syria and beyond. Hardliners in Tehran called for retaliation after the Israeli operation in Damascus, and there was a risk that the Iranian leadership would not take this internal pressure into account in its decision to retaliate. Another option was for Iran to pursue the Israeli military through its proxies and partners. Tehran could have intensified the proxy attacks by increasing their numbers and/or deploying more advanced weapons. This option was less attractive because Iran needed to be able to take responsibility for the attack.
Another key issue is nuclear proliferation. Iran’s nuclear programme has long been a source of concern for the West, which fears that it could trigger a regional arms race or lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons to non-state actors. Direct conflict with Israel (which already possesses such weapons, of little concern to the West) could encourage Iran to accelerate its nuclear ambitions, increasing the risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. This in turn would undermine Russia’s and China’s global non-proliferation efforts and increase the likelihood of nuclear war or accidental escalation with catastrophic consequences for the entire planet.
In addition to conventional military tactics, a conflict between Israel and Iran would likely result in a significant escalation of cyber warfare. Both countries have sophisticated cyber capabilities and have shown a willingness to use them in the past. Such a war between these two adversaries could hit critical infrastructure, disrupt communications networks and wreak havoc on financial markets. The consequences of these attacks could be far-reaching, undermining confidence in digital systems and causing widespread panic and uncertainty in the region and globally.
A direct war between Israel and Iran would create fertile ground for terrorist organisations to exploit, further exacerbating the threat of global terrorism. Radical groups sympathetic to either side could exploit the chaos and instability to launch attacks against their enemies or to advance their own agendas. The proliferation of weapons, the collapse of security forces and the displacement of populations will create a breeding ground for extremism, posing a serious threat to regional and global security.
The environmental aspect of war should also not be forgotten. A direct war between Iran and Israel would not only destroy a huge population and infrastructure, but would also cause serious environmental damage. The Middle East is home to fragile ecosystems and vital waterways that could be threatened by the widespread use of military force and the destruction of critical infrastructure. The loss of vital resources and the degradation of ecosystems will exacerbate existing environmental problems, including climate change and water scarcity, adding to the suffering of future generations.
Meanwhile, the economic consequences of a direct war between Israel and Iran would be felt not only in the Middle East but around the world. Both countries are major players in the global economy, with extensive trade networks and strategic resources. In particular, any disruption to oil supplies from the Persian Gulf will lead to higher prices and destabilise economies dependent on energy imports. The knock-on effects are likely to be felt in sectors ranging from finance to agriculture, pushing the already fragile economies of the South into recession and exacerbating social unrest.
Finally, a direct and full-blown Israeli-Iranian conflict would have a profound impact on diplomatic relations and international cooperation. Countries would be forced to take sides, further polarising the global community and undermining efforts to resolve conflicts through diplomacy and dialogue. A breakdown in diplomatic channels could lead to increased isolationism and nationalism, making it even more difficult to find peaceful solutions to the myriad problems facing the world today.
Regardless of whether Iran’s military retaliation provokes a wider regional escalation, Tehran’s goal is clear: to deter any future Israeli attack without provoking a full-scale war between Iran and the United States. This is why the need to calibrate an Iranian military response to an Israeli attack in Syria was so difficult to define in Iran. Ultimately, before any decision was made, Ali Khamenei’s priority was to ensure the survival of the Islamic Republic rather than to engage in direct military conflict with Israel and, more broadly, with US forces in the region. Fear of the fall of the Islamic Republic was the main political and military constraint on Tehran’s response to the Israeli attack in Syria.
In any case, the escalation of tensions between Israel and Iran poses a serious threat to regional and global stability. The consequences of a direct war between the two countries would be severe and far-reaching, with the potential to set off a chain of negative events that could alter the geopolitical landscape for years to come and possibly bury the current unipolar world.
Victor MIKHIN, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, especially for online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”