Another line in the sand is crossed
Iran hits Israel with one of the biggest-ever missile strikes - and what comes next could take us just a little bit closer to World War III
Tuesday’s Iranian missile strike on Israel may mark a critical juncture, not just in Israel’s nearly year-long war against Hamas, Hezbollah and other Iranian proxy groups, but also in the strategic equation of the Middle East at large.
In the wake of one of the most concentrated ballistic missiles strikes on a nation in history, there are scenarios — perhaps not probable, but far from implausible — that risk taking us closer to World War III than ever before.
I was appearing on the air with the multilingual Israeli news station I24 (above) when the missiles were launched. My panel and I decided to continue broadcasting from the station’s studios in Jaffa, even as the control room and all support staff evacuated to a secure area. Booms began to be heard overhead — which we now know were mostly missiles being intercepted.
When the Home Front Command started commandeering our phones to demand flight to a secure area, we decided to hang up our spurs, apologize to viewers and join the others in the station’s version of it. Although many of the people there were “battle hardened” journalists, the drama, what with the sirens and the overhead explosions, was rather extreme. Unlike Iran’s previous strike in April, this time the projectiles weren’t slow-moving drones, but high-speed ballistic missiles travelling at 15,000 miles (almost 25,000 kilometers) an hour and capable of massive destruction.
It’s a mercy that only one casualty has been reported (which may have been at least somewhat intentional, as Iran reportedly warned the US and Russia the attack was coming). Basically everyone was in shelters as Israel’s air defenses continue to prove to be the world’s gold standard (especially with major assists from the US and some regional allies). Yet there is still the sense that a Rubicon has been crossed — that this strike fundamentally changes things (or at least takes them up a few notches).
A year after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, with the missile strike serving almost as an anniversary punctuation, there is a sense that Israel may have finally lost all patience with the so-called “circle of fire” Iran has established around it — proxy groups including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Yemen’s vexing Houthis. Essentially, Israel now views the presence of Iran’s proxies on its borders, and the broader involvement of Tehran in the Palestinian conflict, as unacceptable.
Especially noxious is Hezbollah’s presence on its northern border, occasionally firing rockets, digging tunnels, and plotting Oct. 7-style ground invasions. Israel has no real conflict with Lebanon, a contrary that has been hijacked by this mafia. So in recent weeks Israel has already assassinated most of the Hezbollah leadership, including its chief Hassan Nasrallah, and in the past 24 hours has launched a limited ground invasion.
Israel’s goal by this point is almost certainly not just to repel the immediate threats but to alter the strategic equation in the region by neutralizing Iran’s entire chaos project. The way it responds to Iran’s attack might indeed, in a maximal scenario, redefine the region’s strategic order. Israel still has work in Gaza and Lebanon, but with Iran it faces three possible courses of action:
A pro forma response: In this scenario, Israel would respond to Iran’s ballistic missile strike, but only symbolically. Its calculation in taking this path would factor in that no Israeli lives were lost in this strike, and that Iran telegraphed the attack with warnings to Russia and the US. Such a limited, low-risk response might satisfy some of Israel’s immediate security concerns, but it would do little to deter Iran or disrupt its larger strategic ambitions. This is the path of least resistance, but it is unlikely to alter the status quo. For Israel, that might not be enough anymore.
A tactical strike on Iran: A more substantial response could involve direct military action against Iranian assets, such as oil facilities or military installations. This would aim to inflict real damage on Iran’s infrastructure, forcing it to reconsider further provocations. An attack on an oil installation, for instance, could disrupt Iran’s economic lifelines and send the clear message that Israel will not tolerate continued missile strikes. The goal here would be to create enough pain for Iran to deter future actions, without pushing the region into a full-scale war.
A strategic overhaul of the region’s balance of power: The third option is far more ambitious, and fraught with risk, but could reshape the Middle East. It would involve Israel somehow pushing the West to lay down the law with Iran, demanding not just an end to its missile strikes, but a full dismantling of its nuclear program and an end to its sponsorship of proxy forces across the region.
In this last scenario, Israel — or preferably, from its perspective, the US and other Western allies— could blockade Iranian ports, destroy key oil facilities, and even employ bunker-busting bombs to cripple Iran’s nuclear capabilities. This might also involve the West providing significant backing to Iranian opposition groups, further destabilizing the regime in Tehran. The overarching goal would be to not just contain Iran, but to bring about regime change, or at the very least to neutralize its ambitions.
The likelihood of Israel opting for the latter path may depend on the broader geopolitical landscape. Any aggressive Israeli action against Iran carries risks far beyond the Middle East, and could provoke a massive retaliation from Tehran.
This is where the World War III scenario — which sounds like hyperbole but is basically not — comes into play.
If Iran responds very forcefully, the US would probably be drawn into the conflict to protect Israel. This could trigger a chain reaction, with Russia and China, both of whom have strategic relationships with Iran, seeing an opportunity to at least exploit the chaos. China could use the distraction to finally make a long-threatened move on Taiwan, while Russian President Vladimir Putin might take the opportunity to expand his war in Ukraine, or press into other neighboring countries.
The global balance of power would be thrown into disarray, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
We’re not likely to actually know how it will play out until after the US presidential election. Israel understands that any world-altering action before then would be unlikely to win the support of Joe Biden’s administration, which has thrown its weight behind Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy. Michigan and other swing states with significant Muslim populations could swing the election, and the Democrats cannot afford to alienate these voters by being drawn into a new Middle Eastern conflict on Israel’s side.
But once the election is over, the political calculus changes. If the Democrats secure their position, Biden — or whomever holds office after him — will have more freedom to support Israeli actions against Iran. And the argument in favor of this — no matter what appeasers might say — is strong, considering that the regime may soon possess nuclear weapons. This makes the post-election period a critical window for Israel to act decisively.
The decisions made in the coming months could either stabilize the Middle East or plunge it into greater turmoil, with global consequences that could spiral out of control. The antagonists are playing a very dangerous game.
(A version of this story appeared in the Forward)
Maybe it was just a warning from Iran, and it's time for Israel to think seriously about a low intensity war escalating into a full scale war. Can Israel create a cease fire and get NATO into a discussion? Here's an example of brainstorming:
John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs | All-In Summit 2024
https://youtu.be/uvFtyDy_Bt0?si=FWcSWQk6t8snTvyu
Be safe Dan Perry - we don't want you or your family caught in the crossfire.
In what is now a tic for tax, Netanyahu keeps escalating the fight in appeasing his right wing allies who are egging him on to take on Iran directly while apparently hoping to drag the US into its fight against Iran; however, in polling done in August 2024, the majority of Americans oppose US involvement in another ME war. It appears that the attack with significant US support helped avert significant destruction to Israel. If Netanyahu was prudent, he would take the win and look for an off ramp to deescalate the crisis which is ultimately in everyone’s interest.