As tensions between Israel and Iran escalate, the Middle East's geopolitical landscape is rapidly shifting. Iran’s October 1, 2024 missile strike, involving nearly 200 ballistic missiles has added fuel to an already volatile situation, with Israel deeply engaged in conflicts on multiple fronts, including Gaza and Lebanon. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu called the attack a "major mistake" and warned that Iran "will pay," making Israeli retaliation likely.
On October 14, Wikistrat hosted a webinar with Dr. Raz Zimmt, an expert on Iran from the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) and a Research Fellow at the Alliance Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University. Dr. Zimmt shared his perspectives on how recent developments are shaping Iran's security strategy and Israel's potential responses.
Watch the recording here:
Which Targets Israel is Most Likely to Hit?
According to Dr. Zimmt, Israel has a range of options for potential strikes, which can be organized into four main categories based on the likelihood of being attacked:
Military Targets: This category includes air defense systems, missile production facilities, and other military infrastructure tied to Iran's support for Hezbollah. Targeting military assets is the most likely option, as it allows Israel to send a strong message without escalating the situation beyond control. Strikes on these targets would directly impact Hezbollah's ability to sustain its missile arsenal, weakening its ability to threaten Israeli security in the near term.
Symbols of the Iranian Regime: Potential targets in this category might include government or military headquarters in Iran. While symbolically significant, the effectiveness of such strikes is less certain, as the boundaries between military and symbolic targets are often blurred. Israel may consider this option if it seeks to weaken Iran’s political leadership, though it is seen as less likely than targeting military infrastructure.
Iranian Infrastructure: Energy-related infrastructure, such as oil and gas facilities, represents another potential target. However, Dr. Zimmt noted that the United States has reportedly urged Israel to avoid these strikes due to concerns over broader regional destabilization. This makes Iranian infrastructure a less probable target in the immediate term, but it remains a possibility depending on how the conflict evolves.
Nuclear Facilities: Although Israel has long considered striking Iran's nuclear facilities, such an action is deemed less likely in the short term due to potential international fallout and the complexities of such an operation. Nonetheless, Israel could turn to this option if tensions continue to escalate or if diplomatic solutions appear unattainable. The destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would deliver a significant blow to Iran’s strategic capabilities but could also provoke severe retaliation and a broader conflict.
In summary, Israel’s most likely targets are Iran’s military infrastructure and missile stockpiles, followed by other Iranian military assets. Strikes on symbolic targets or Iranian infrastructure are possible but less likely, while nuclear facilities remain on the table as a more extreme option.
Attacking Iran’s Nuclear Facilities: High Risks, Complex Calculations
The possibility of Israel launching a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities remains a hotly debated topic. Zimmt noted that there is growing consensus within Israel that Iran’s nuclear program must be dealt with militarily, particularly as Iran advances toward full nuclear capabilities. However, any such move would come with significant risks, including Iranian retaliation and the potential to push Tehran into full-scale nuclear weapon development.
According to Zimmt, Israel’s decision will depend heavily on U.S. support and the outcome of the upcoming U.S. elections. He cautioned that a poorly timed or uncoordinated strike could have severe consequences, particularly if Iran decides to escalate its nuclear ambitions in response to an attack.
Wikistrat’s 2022 report, "When Israel Strikes Iran," is highly relevant to this scenario. The report explored the potential consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, predicting that any military action could trigger regional nuclear proliferation, with both Iran and Saudi Arabia advancing their nuclear ambitions. Furthermore, Iran would likely seek closer military cooperation with Russia and China following such a strike, though neither would assist in rebuilding Iran’s nuclear program. The simulation also warned that a failed strike could drive Saudi Arabia to fast-track its own nuclear development, adding further instability to the region.
“The fact that we are already two weeks after the Iranian attack clearly shows the complexity of the decisions inside Israel,” he said, pointing to the ongoing balancing act between demonstrating strength and avoiding broader war.
A Strategic Window?
Despite of the high risks that Zimmt's described, there is a growing sentiment among hawkish policy makers in Israel that the current geopolitical situation presents a unique window of opportunity. A few reasons for this:
First, Hezbollah's diminishing strength in Lebanon opened strategic possibilities for targeting Iran's nuclear program while Hezbollah is less capable of mounting a significant retaliatory strike. Additionally, the fact that Israel is already in a state of war, engaged on multiple fronts, has led some Israeli policymakers to consider this an opportune moment to deal a decisive blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions, as the potential of further escalation is not much worst than it is now.
In addition, there is a concern that the U.S. political climate may shift shortly, potentially leading to less American support for military actions against Iran, a consideration that adds further urgency to the consideration of such a strike.
Moreover, the perception of a narrowing technological window and the fear that Iran's advancements in missile and drone technologies may eventually close the gap in military capabilities between the two nations intensifies the sense that Israel should act sooner rather than later.
Is Iran Reconsidering its Nuclear Strategy?
Dr. Zimmt argued that regardless of an Israeli attack against its nuclear sites, the collapse of Hezbollah into an exisitnatial crisis, could push Iran to reconsider its nuclear strategy. Historically, Iran has followed a nuclear threshold strategy—developing nuclear capabilities without crossing the line into full weaponization. However, with its regional proxies under increasing pressure, Iran may be tempted to adopt a North Korean strategy: developing and maintaining a small number of nuclear bombs as a form of ultimate deterrence.
According to Dr. Zimmt, Iran’s calculus may shift if its deterrence through Hezbollah and Hamas continues to erode. The recent escalation in Gaza and Lebanon, coupled with Israel's growing efforts to establish military presence trough alliances and agreement with the gulf states in the region, may compel Iran to accelerate its nuclear ambitions.
Iran's National Security Strategy Triad Re-evaluated: Proxies, Strategic Weapons, and Nuclear
Dr. Zimmt explained that Iran's national security strategy is built on a triad: proxies (such as Hezbollah), strategic weapons (such as ballistic missiles), and its nuclear program. The interplay between these three elements has enabled Iran to project power beyond its borders and maintain a deterrence posture.
However, Iran’s traditional reliance on proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas has faced major challenges. The setbacks suffered by Hezbollah and Hamas in the past year, have called into question the effectiveness of this strategy, especially as both groups struggle to maintain their capabilities in the face of Israeli military operations. “Iran’s strategy of using proxies to keep the fight away from its borders has failed to achieve its objectives,” Zimmt observed. As such, Iran may seek to balance its reliance on proxies with an increase focus on strategic weapons development and devloping a nuclear weapon.
“We are facing a new and very dangerous phase in the Israeli-Iranian confrontation,” Zimmt noted, emphasizing the potential regional and global consequences if Iran decides to cross the nuclear threshold. While an immediate decision is unlikely, the discourse is increasingly shifting in favor of weaponization, particularly as Iran seeks to bolster its deterrence in light of recent military failures.
Is Iran Seeking a Ceasefire in Lebanon?
Dr. Zimmt suggested that Iran may seek a ceasefire in Lebanon to preserve Hezbollah as a long-term asset. Although Hezbollah has been weakened by recent Israeli strikes, it remains a critical element of Iran's regional strategy. Dr. Zimmt argued that Iran may prefer a de-escalation to avoid further weakening Hezbollah, especially given the increasing pressure on its other proxy forces in the region.
Moreover, a ceasefire in Lebanon could buy Iran valuable time to rebuild Hezbollah's military capabilities and reassess its strategic options. Dr. Zimmt highlighted that while Iran is unlikely to abandon its proxy forces entirely, it may pursue a temporary pause in hostilities to consolidate its assets and avoid overstretching its resources.
Dr. Zimmt cautioned that Iran might see value in prolonging the conflict in Lebanon into a low-intensity attrition war. Such a strategy could force Israel to allocate more resources while giving Hezbollah the opportunity to shift the narrative of defeat by engaging in a sustained, long-term military campaign.
Strategic Insights
Dr. Zimmt provided several strategic insights into Iran’s current posture and future trajectory:
The loss of strategic influence through proxies has forced Iran to reconsider the utility of this approach. Iran’s efforts to coordinate proxy attacks against Israel from multiple fronts have not succeeded in forcing a ceasefire or halting Israeli military actions. The weakening of Hezbollah, in particular, represents a significant blow to Iran’s deterrence capabilities.
The missile strike on Israel on October 1st demonstrated Iran’s willingness to escalate militarily, but Dr. Zimmt noted that “despite the use of hundreds of ballistic missiles against Israel, Iran is still suffering from a strategic lack of ability to deal with Israel’s technological and aerial capabilities”. This failure highlights the limitations of Iran’s current approach. As such, Iran will likely continue to walk a fine line between supporting its proxies and avoiding a full-scale conflict with Israel.
As a result of the recent blows and strategic capbility gap, Iran might be rethinking its long-standing nuclear doctrine. Traditionally a "threshold" nuclear state, Iran has avoided weaponizing its nuclear capabilities. However, recent setbacks have led to growing debates within Iran’s leadership about whether to move toward weaponization. Zimmt pointed to reports of internal discussions within the Iranian parliament about the necessity of developing nuclear weapons to safeguard Iran’s security.
A potential ceasefire in Lebanon could serve Iran’s interests in the short term, allowing it to rebuild Hezbollah and reassess its regional strategy. Dr. Zimmt argued that Iran’s long-term goals remain unchanged, but a temporary de-escalation may provide breathing room as it navigates the current crisis.
The triad of proxies, strategic weapons, and nuclear development remains the backbone of Iran’s national security strategy. However, Dr. Zimmt concluded that Iran may need to adapt its strategy in light of recent setbacks, potentially placing greater emphasis on strategic weapons and nuclear capabilities moving forward.
Kommentare