Azad Kashmir Day (Youm-e-Tasees)
October 25, 2024
Kashmir Votes ‘No’ to the BJP’s Policies
October 27, 2024
Noureen Akhtar
Since Israel launched airstrikes against Iranian military bases on Saturday morning, this has sharply worsened the protracted conflict between the two regional superpowers. It is a long-overdue response to months of Iranian aggression especially after the October 1 missile barrage, said the IDF, which casts a dark shadow over the already precarious power dynamics in the region. Attacks on military installations in several Iranian provinces including Tehran, Khuzestan, and Ilam have caused the death of at least two Iranian soldiers while infrastructures had only minor damages, according to reports.
The Israeli military conducted airstrikes on Iranian military installations as a response to months of assaults attributed to Iran and its proxies.
The prevailing conflict is framed by the rub of mounting tensions Israeli-Iranian relations have seen in recent months. Iran has claimed the missiles launched at Israel since the start of the war with Hamas in Gaza last month were revenge for the killing of important people in its area of influence. Israel chose to act tough after the IDF reported that the missile strikes were just part of a larger pattern of aggression from Tehran and its proxies.
The actions that targeted the “military assets, which were used against Israel” are necessary, according to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister. He said that it was a preventive and a deterrent measure against more possible attacks by Iranian forces, along with their allies, and was different from those covert operations that were waged inside Iran when Israel itself was on the brink of resuming open military conflicts against the nation.
These developments are closely watched by the international leaders. The U.S. has termed the attacks by Israel as an exercise of self-defence. A National Security Council spokesman said that after missile attacks by Iran, U.S. acknowledges Israel’s right to carry out targeted attacks against military installations in Iran. However, at the same time, the American officials have also urged Israel to exercise restraint saying more of this may cause it to spill over into the regional conflict.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the strikes were necessary for deterrence against potential Iranian attacks.
No surprise, Iran responded in absolute defiance. Officials of the country declared their right to defend themselves against what they termed an “aggression” by Israel. The Iranian foreign ministry termed the airstrikes as a flagrant violation of international law and reiterated that Iran will take all measures to preserve its sovereignty. Analysts say that perhaps Iran muted its response to save its dignity in a fight for external forces, especially the U.S.
Experts say this move holds important implications for the stability of the Middle East. At the very least, two nations might be desirous of not having an all-out war, yet possibilities of miscalculation abound. The strikes opened up a new chapter of rivalry-one that looks decidedly open in conflict rather than covert skirmishes. As Ellie Geranmayeh of the European Council on Foreign Relations points out: “The years of shadow warfare have now transitioned into open conflict-but a controlled one for the moment.”
This comes at very strategic implications. Targeting Iranian military infrastructure but not energy facilities or nuclear sites, Israel seems to be trying to limit its actions to avoid an overwhelming response by Iran while still showing the global military capabilities at its disposal. This plan might only buy time; analysts believe that both nations may continue their aggressive posturing as they jockey to take the upper hand in the region.
Iran condemned the airstrikes as a violation of international law and asserted its right to defend itself against Israeli aggression.
As tensions simmer, it is unclear how this newest escalation will unfold. Though some think that at this stage, both countries may prefer to steer clear of more direct confrontations, what continues to fuel the rivalry is yet to be resolved. It does not help that Iranian proxies remain embroiled in ongoing conflicts throughout the region, specifically in Lebanon and Syria-a complicated arrangement for any hope of lasting peace.
In thinking of future dynamics between Israel and Iran, one question is left remaining, can either state afford to be portrayed as weak or even passive in the eyes of domestic audiences? Trita Parsi, from Quincy Institute, writes that restraint by Iran now will encourage Israeli action against other regional targets; on the other hand, any meaningful act of retaliation on the part of Iran is likely to spread into much wider-scale military actions.
The situation between Israel and Iran has now become symptomatic of the greater geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. With both countries playing a delicate game of threats and counter-threats, there is an urgent need for efforts at de-escalation through diplomatic means.
The stakes are high; further military confrontations would result from failure to control these tensions and destabilize what is already a fragile region. In that regard, the question remains: can the rivaling parties somehow peacefully live with each other amidst their deep-seated animosities, or is what we are seeing nothing but the dawn of a new chapter in an old conflict?
The Author is a PhD Scholar (SPIR-QAU) and has worked on various public policy issues as a Policy Consultant in the National Security Division (NSD), Prime Minister Office (PMO). Currently, she is editor Stratheia and works for Islamabad Policy Research Institution (IPRI) as a Non-Resident Policy Research Consultant. Her work has been published in local and International publications. She can be reached at https://www.linkedin.com/in/noureen-akhtar-188502253/ and akhtarnoureen26@gmail.com She Tweets @NoureenAkhtar16
