Israel’s attack on Iran: What next?

Israel carried out an attack on Iran during the night of October 25 and 26.

According to Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, a spokesperson for the Israeli military, this action was a response to ongoing threats from Iran against Israel. He mentioned that the strikes were careful and focused on military targets.

We are still waiting for details about the damage caused, but it looks like Israel aimed at specific military locations.

It seems that the US government has had limited success in convincing Israel not to target important sites like nuclear and oil facilities. Such attacks could seriously harm both the regional and global economy and allow Iran to move closer to developing nuclear weapons.

There may be more Israeli attacks in the future, possibly followed by cyber attacks.

Western experts believe that Israel has shown some restraint because it wants to follow US advice to keep the conflict limited to military targets.

The goal of the Israeli attacks was to prevent Iran from moving closer to developing nuclear weapons and to avoid causing a global energy crisis.

This is the first time Israel has carried out large-scale military actions against Iran. The attacks reflect Prime Minister Netanyahu’s long-held desire to strike Iran, which became more urgent due to his unpopularity after the Gaza War.

Israel had previously provoked Iran by attacking its embassy in Damascus in April and by killing Hamas leader Ismael Haniya in Tehran in July 2024.

Israel feels threatened by Iranian groups in the region, like Hamas and Palestinian Jihad in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and others in Yemen and Syria. These groups use tactics that slowly weaken Israel without direct confrontation.

The recent Israeli attack aims to show that they can defend themselves and respond strongly to Iranian threats. This is also meant to boost public confidence in Netanyahu’s leadership while trying to damage the Iranian military, especially their missile sites.

This is the first time Israel has faced all of Iran’s allies at once, including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other Iranian groups in Syria.

Iran and its allies are fighting Israel in what is called an “Asymmetric War.” In this type of conflict, the weaker side often wins by using unconventional tactics.

According to a theory by Ivan Arreguin Toft, when strong and weak sides clash, the weaker side can win if they use different strategies. If both sides use the same approach, the stronger side usually wins.

The weaker side often fights indirectly, while the stronger side fights directly. Arreguin Toft studied 200 years of conflicts and found that weaker sides usually succeed when they use indirect methods.

Clausewitz also discussed similar ideas. He talked about “instrumental rationality,” which means using different strategies to influence the opponent’s will. In simple terms, this means that using clever tactics can help the weaker side succeed against a stronger opponent.

Brafman and Beckstrom explain Asymmetric Warfare in their book “Starfish and Spider.” They compare a traditional military force to a spider, which has a central nervous system and predictable reactions. In contrast, a group using unconventional tactics is like a starfish; if you cut off one tentacle, it can grow back and act independently based on its beliefs.

In this situation, Israel is like the spider, using direct methods against decentralized groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Even though Israel has had some successes, these groups continue to fight back.

According to Arreguin’s theory, the long-term result of the conflict between Israel and Iran’s allies may lead to Israel’s defeat. Israel’s recent attacks on Iran seem to be a way to address feelings at home while taking advantage of a moment when the US government is not very active due to upcoming elections.

To make sure they don’t upset the US, Israel has avoided targeting important nuclear and oil sites in their initial strikes. They might be waiting for a better opportunity, especially if Trump returns to power.

Referring back to Clausewitz’s idea of “instrumental rationality,” the way Iran responds will shape how the conflict develops. The situation could escalate in a more complex way, using diplomacy, trade pressures, and alliances rather than just a straightforward back-and-forth response.

This current conflict between Iran and Israel is likely to follow this more complicated pattern, rather than a simple linear path.

In simple terms, Iran will handle the recent attacks without reacting strongly at first. They will think carefully about their options and use their strengths in proxy wars.

If Iran decides to retaliate with missile strikes, they will consider the benefits and costs of doing so. Instead of escalating the situation in a straightforward way, they are more likely to use indirect methods that give them the best advantage.

Going into a direct conflict isn’t wise for Iran for two main reasons. First, their conventional military power is weak because of sanctions. Second, they are not ready to use nuclear weapons against Israel.

There are rumors that Iran has developed the ability to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, suggesting they are close to having nuclear capabilities. However, there’s no solid proof of this, and even if they have enriched uranium, they still need to turn it into a usable weapon, which they are not prepared to do yet.

Iran’s Air Force isn’t strong enough to deliver a nuclear weapon, and their ballistic missiles aren’t configured for nuclear use because they haven’t developed the necessary technology.

With no nuclear weapons and weakened conventional forces due to sanctions, Iran will likely keep relying on Asymmetric Warfare strategies.

If Iran does respond by launching missiles, it’s important to note that Israel has a strong defense system that can stop many of those missiles. Israel uses several layers of defense, including the Iron Dome for short-range missiles, Arrow 2 for medium-range, and Arrow 3 for long-range missiles.

The US also provided Israel with the THAAD system to help defend against missiles at medium altitudes. With the combined surveillance efforts of the US and its allies, the chances of Iranian missiles getting through to Israel are very low, especially when Israel is fully prepared.

So, we return to the idea that Iran and its allies use Asymmetric Warfare as their main strategy against Israel, which has nuclear weapons and a stronger military.

Iran’s tactics and its network of allies will keep causing problems for Israel until the real issues behind the conflict are addressed. However, Israel’s nuclear power and support from the US make it less likely to focus on these root causes.

With US help and nuclear capabilities, Israel feels bold enough to act without worrying about the consequences.

Right now, the tensions between Iran and Israel might calm down for a while, but there’s no guarantee that Israel won’t start the conflict again. There is a big concern that if Iran loses faith in the international community’s ability to control Israel, it might follow Israel’s example. If Iran gains nuclear capabilities and support from a powerful country, just as the US supports Israel, it could lead to serious problems.

Is there still enough global leadership to prevent this kind of disaster from happening

Related stories

Share this: