Apparent and covert Israeli goals in the military conflict with Iran can trigger a massive escalation in the Middle East. The pragmatic Israel would not have lifted a finger without having consulted with the US, but will Tel Aviv be able to achieve its goals in this campaign?
What are Israel’s goals in the military confrontation with Iran?
1) the destruction of nuclear facilities (production, scientific, technical, raw materials, energy, nuclear physicists). The motto is: “Iran should not have nuclear weapons”;
2) to seriously undermine Iran’s defence capabilities (liquidating weapons arsenals, rocket launchers, artillery, air defence systems, drones, military-industrial complex enterprises, research laboratories, communications, airfields, as well as the commanders of the army, IRGC and intelligence services);
3) the destruction of vitally important economic and social infrastructure (energy, oil refineries, oil storages, roads, bridges, control and information communications centres, large enterprises, water pipes);
4) to spread panic in Iranian society and evoke mass dissatisfaction with the ruling regime to change the theocratic regime in Tehran;
5) to spark a separatist movement and ethnic extremism among the ethnic minorities in their respective regions (Azeris, Kurds, Balochis) to undermine the territorial integrity of the Iranian state.
In addition, Israel calls present-day Iran the “axis of terrorism” and is allegedly trying to defeat it with its operation. However, any Iranian resistance (including self-defence in accordance with the norms of international law and the UN Charter) is called “terrorism” by Israel. At the same time it is unclear why the Israeli Air Force struck the Iranian State TV building, which is not a nuclear object.
Course of military operations and the possibility of a US intervention
It is notable that the IDF is combining Operation Rising Lion with audacious reconnaissance and sabotage operations. Since the first day of the attack, the Israel intelligence services have been able to liquidate with precision a number of key Iranian military leaders and nuclear physicists.
Among the casualties was Ali Shamkhani, the main Iranian negotiator with the US. Thus, Netanyahu has practically halted US-Iranian negotiations, steering the resolution of the situation towards destroying Iranian nuclear facilities. The liquidation of key figures in the Iranian army, intelligence services and the IRGC (e.g. two chiefs of the General Staff, Major General Mohammad Bagheri and Major General Ali Shadmani, the Commander-in-Chief of the IRGC, Hossein Salami, Commander of the IRGC’s Intelligence Organisation, Mohammad Kazemi, and others) was clearly aimed at decapitating the enemy’s military corps and incapacitating him. However, Iran’s layered personnel reserve system made it possible to swiftly replace staff and turn to defence and contracts.
Israeli sabotage was mostly aimed at physicists, high-ranking officers of the army, IRGC and intelligence services. Counterintelligence officers, however, were not on the list, with the Iranian counterintelligence regime having failed. This may indirectly indicate the presence of Mossad and Aman agents in the Iranian counterintelligence system, the ineffectiveness of which is satisfactory to Israel.
The main form of combat is missile strikes, as the two conflicting sides do not share a land border. The Israeli Air Force crosses the airspaces of Jordan, Syria and Iraq on the way to Iran. The same route, but in reverse, is adhered to by Iranian rockets and drones.
The regular Israeli Air Force attacks and sabotage operations of the intelligence services are presently confined to striking the nuclear facility in Natanz and other facilities on Iranian territory. The Natanz strike partially solved the issue. During the first day, a radiation leak was recorded, however Iran and neighbouring countries later denied any changes in radiation levels.
There are up to 30 nuclear facilities in Iran, and the Fordow uranium enrichment plant is particularly threatening to Israel. The plant is located in a mountainous region almost 1 km below the ground (800 m), which makes it more difficult to strike. Israel just does not have a bomb like the 13.5-tonne GBU-57. They are only possessed by the United States, and may be delivered to the bombing site by US B-2 Spirit bombers. Does this, in effect, mean that Israel cannot destroy the Iranian nuclear programme without the US?
The transfer of such ammunition and aviation from the US to Israel for precision strikes cannot be ruled out. Israel by itself is capable of incapacitating energy facilities connected to Fordow or even orchestrating an sabotage operation at the nuclear facility itself. The near future will show which option will be chosen.
Will the US intervene in the conflict?
The US Nimitz aircraft carrier, combat and cargo aviation (including refuelling tankers), ammunition and soldiers being transferred to the Middle East speak to the possible US intervention in the conflict. In addition, Trump, who was a staunch support of negotiations with Iran just a while ago, has changed his tone following the G7 meeting of heads of state in Canada. Now he is uninterested in continuing talks with Tehran and is speaking of “full control of Iranian skies” and achieving Iran’s “unconditional surrender”.
It is clear that there are ‘hawks’ in the US putting pressure on Trump to intervene in the conflict militarily (for example, Senator Lindsay Graham or the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee). It is no coincidence that their opponents (the so-called ‘doves of peace’ or regular pragmatists) are against the war. Senator Bernie Sanders is accusing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of provoking a war with Iran, undermining nuclear talks with Omani mediation and attempting to drag the US into the conflict. Sanders is against all US involvement in the war against Iran (both militarily and financially). The US may turn out to be unprepared for a protracted war with Iran, and Israel’s blitzkrieg has failed.
The plans of Israel and its allies may be interrupted by the increasing Iranian rocket strikes on Israeli territory, as well as the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Aden being blocked. The IRGC and army command has announced its readiness for a protracted war, with the necessary arsenal and resistance forces. Iran’s foreign opponents’ bet on a regime change in Iran by bringing back the imperial regime, headed by the weak oldest son of the deceased Shah, Reza Pahlavi, illustrates the West’s lack of options. This opposition figure is rejected by Iranian society and will not last on the throne – even with the support of the US Marines.
Ethnic separatism is a more serious threat to Iranian interests. Such a provocation could reanimate Persian nationalism and lead to civil conflict, where the theocratic regime would turn into a Persian-centric military dictatorship.
Conflict internationalisation or compromise?
Yaakov Kedmi believes that the Israeli-Iranian conflict is local and that new actors will not get involved. According to Kedmi, the Israeli Air Force is not in need of anybody’s help. Nevertheless, he does not rule out US assistance in terms of the aforementioned deep-reaching bombs and aviation to destroy the Fordow plant. Israel is not interested in the expansion of the conflict.
However, depending on the development of hostilities, it cannot be ruled out that other external actors will intervene on the side of Iran, namely China and North Korea, for example if the Strait of Hormuz is cut off and oil prices start rising. Such a step would be a last resort for Iran; on the one hand, Iran does not want relations with the oil-rich Gulf monarchies to sour, and on the other hand, its arsenal is presently large enough to continue the war.
China will not deny Iran military and technical assistance; additional air defence systems, ballistic missiles and drones may be transferred to Iran. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un stated that if Israel continues to war, Pyongyang will officially join the conflict on the side of Iran.
The US maintained that it would not get involved in the conflict under one condition: that Iran does not strike US interests and facilities. However, accidents do happen (for example if another Iranian rocket were to mistakenly fall on a US embassy), and Mossad may organise a provocation of some sort.
Nobody can completely exclude the possibility of a ground operation like in Iraq. Information has surfaced on social media that joint US-Israeli ground forces are allegedly planning to invade Iran through Syria, Iraq and Türkiye. Such a defeat and military weakening of Iran and a following fragmentation along ethnic lines (Balkanisation, Syrianisation or Iraqisation) would naturally deal a serious blow to the Islamic world and would change the landscape of the Middle East. It is unlikely that Türkiye would benefit from participating in tearing Iran apart in such a fashion, as Anatolia itself would become the next target of fragmentation for Israel and the US.
A logical resolution could be the mediation of Russia (or the SCO) to reach a compromise and ceasefire. Yaakov Kedmi believes that the optimal way to put an end to the war is for Iran to sign an agreement unconditionally accepting not to produce nuclear weapons, and for Iranian peaceful nuclear energy to be monitored strictly and internationally. Tehran agrees to relinquish ambitions of nuclear weapons if Israel ceases hostilities and there is an immediate resumption of negotiations with the US. The guarantor of such a negotiation process could be Russia, and its military bases in Iran would control the implementation of agreements reached and security.
Alexander Svarants – Doctor of Political Science, Professor, Turkologist, expert on the Middle East
