Iran-Israel Quagmire: Spiralling Escalation in Middle East

Iran's latest retaliatory strikes against Israel have escalated tensions between the two adversaries, teetering on the edge of war and broadening the scope of conflict in the Middle East. The Iran-Israel standoff appears to be spiralling out of control, harbouring dangerous consequences for the rest of the world. However, a slender margin of deterrence still exists, offering a chance to contain the burgeoning crisis.

Iran-Israel Crisis: The Objectives  

Israel's strategic goals centre around its commitment to completely dismantle Hamas and significantly weaken Iran’s influence in the region by targeting its proxies. This strategy aims to secure peace on Israel's terms and enhance its sense of security. However, Israel's approach is gradually drawing it into an unending conflict. While Israel currently maintains an advantage in this ongoing confrontation and can control some outcomes, it faces a long-term security challenge. The Middle East’s axis of resistance, which includes groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, continues to seek opportunities for retaliation.

Despite facing strong domestic and international opposition, Benjamin Netanyahu's administration has managed some tactical successes. Firstly, it has significantly weakened Hamas, causing internal divisions within the group. Secondly, the operational collaboration between the U.S. and Israel has placed strategic pressure on Iran, increasing its internal challenges—from a faltering economy to the emerging threat posed by ISIS.

Iran's strategic objective revolves around disrupting the geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East, countering the expanding influence of Israel and the United States in the region. Iran aims to severely tarnish Israel's international reputation and rekindle anti-Israel sentiment across the Arab world. Like Israel, Iran has also achieved some tactical victories. Firstly, it has managed to isolate Israel by exploiting its sensitive internal political and social conditions. Secondly, Iran has indirectly intensified the pressure on the United States' political and operational engagement in the Middle East, further complicating the U.S.'s position in the region.

Iran-Israel Standoff: Israel’s Horizontal and Vertical Escalations 

Since the attacks began, Israel has intensified its operations with a singular strategic objective: the total annihilation of Hamas. This has increased the risk of a vertical escalation, deepening and intensifying the conflict. Additionally, there's an element of horizontal escalation at play. Israel's expansion of operational capabilities against Iran's proxies has prompted these groups to open a new front in the Red Sea. Vertical escalation involves intensifying pressure on the enemy through high-intensity strikes, while horizontal escalation seeks to broaden the geographic scope of the conflict. This tactic aims to divert and pressure the US-Israel operational axis. Both forms of escalation muddy the waters of peace and negotiation, providing ample opportunity for both Iran and Israel to engage in cycles of retaliation and counter-retaliation.

Miscalculated Escalation By Iran or Deliberate Attempt?

Iran has committed a serious miscalculation in assessing its operational and strategic responses to Israel's recent attacks on its proxies, particularly following the alleged attack on Iran's consulate in Syria, which resulted in the deaths of senior officers from Iran's Quds Force. A direct effort to destabilise Israel might have been avoided. At the time, Israel was already under significant pressure from the US and was experiencing some degree of isolation. However, Iran's direct retaliation has inadvertently provided Israel with a renewed justification to strike back, further escalating the conflict. 

Although it could be argued that this miscalculation was deliberately made to widen the scope of the conflict and place the US-Israel operational axis under tremendous pressure, it also obscures any chances for negotiations or peace efforts, which the US has been actively pursuing through both political and non-political channels.

Iran-Israel Standoff: The Quagmire 

Iran's retaliation has plunged the situation into a real quagmire, and understanding the likely developments requires a careful analysis based on the well-known Glasl’s model of escalation. This model suggests that Israel's response will likely involve limited yet effective destructive measures, as anything more extensive could deteriorate the regional security of the Middle East and further complicate Israel's situation. Currently, it could be argued that Israel is still operating within a win-lose dynamic in the conflict, and any miscalculated escalation or attempts at total annihilation could not only shift Israel into a lose-lose dynamic but also bring it into direct confrontation with Iran, potentially leading to a disastrous situation.

Israel does possess robust options for striking back, including targeting Iran’s strategic infrastructure, which may encompass not just suspected nuclear sites but also high-profile targets among Iran's proxies. On the other hand, Iran's capacity for a direct high-intensity response is limited. Historically, Iran has opted to respond through

Iran's latest retaliatory strikes against Israel have escalated tensions between the two adversaries, teetering on the edge of war and broadening the scope of conflict in the Middle East. The Iran-Israel standoff appears to be spiralling out of control, harbouring dangerous consequences for the rest of the world. However, a slender margin of deterrence still exists, offering a chance to contain the burgeoning crisis.

Iran-Israel Crisis: The Objectives  

Israel's strategic goals centre around its commitment to completely dismantle Hamas and significantly weaken Iran’s influence in the region by targeting its proxies. This strategy aims to secure peace on Israel's terms and enhance its sense of security. However, Israel's approach is gradually drawing it into an unending conflict. While Israel currently maintains an advantage in this ongoing confrontation and can control some outcomes, it faces a long-term security challenge. The Middle East’s axis of resistance, which includes groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, continues to seek opportunities for retaliation.

Despite facing strong domestic and international opposition, Benjamin Netanyahu's administration has managed some tactical successes. Firstly, it has significantly weakened Hamas, causing internal divisions within the group. Secondly, the operational collaboration between the U.S. and Israel has placed strategic pressure on Iran, increasing its internal challenges—from a faltering economy to the emerging threat posed by ISIS.

Iran's strategic objective revolves around disrupting the geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East, countering the expanding influence of Israel and the United States in the region. Iran aims to severely tarnish Israel's international reputation and rekindle anti-Israel sentiment across the Arab world. Like Israel, Iran has also achieved some tactical victories. Firstly, it has managed to isolate Israel by exploiting its sensitive internal political and social conditions. Secondly, Iran has indirectly intensified the pressure on the United States' political and operational engagement in the Middle East, further complicating the U.S.'s position in the region.

Iran-Israel Standoff: Israel’s Horizontal and Vertical Escalations 

Since the attacks began, Israel has intensified its operations with a singular strategic objective: the total annihilation of Hamas. This has increased the risk of a vertical escalation, deepening and intensifying the conflict. Additionally, there's an element of horizontal escalation at play. Israel's expansion of operational capabilities against Iran's proxies has prompted these groups to open a new front in the Red Sea. Vertical escalation involves intensifying pressure on the enemy through high-intensity strikes, while horizontal escalation seeks to broaden the geographic scope of the conflict. This tactic aims to divert and pressure the US-Israel operational axis. Both forms of escalation muddy the waters of peace and negotiation, providing ample opportunity for both Iran and Israel to engage in cycles of retaliation and counter-retaliation.

Miscalculated Escalation By Iran or Deliberate Attempt?

Iran has committed a serious miscalculation in assessing its operational and strategic responses to Israel's recent attacks on its proxies, particularly following the alleged attack on Iran's consulate in Syria, which resulted in the deaths of senior officers from Iran's Quds Force. A direct effort to destabilise Israel might have been avoided. At the time, Israel was already under significant pressure from the US and was experiencing some degree of isolation. However, Iran's direct retaliation has inadvertently provided Israel with a renewed justification to strike back, further escalating the conflict. 

Although it could be argued that this miscalculation was deliberately made to widen the scope of the conflict and place the US-Israel operational axis under tremendous pressure, it also obscures any chances for negotiations or peace efforts, which the US has been actively pursuing through both political and non-political channels.

Iran-Israel Standoff: The Quagmire 

Iran's retaliation has plunged the situation into a real quagmire, and understanding the likely developments requires a careful analysis based on the well-known Glasl’s model of escalation. This model suggests that Israel's response will likely involve limited yet effective destructive measures, as anything more extensive could deteriorate the regional security of the Middle East and further complicate Israel's situation. Currently, it could be argued that Israel is still operating within a win-lose dynamic in the conflict, and any miscalculated escalation or attempts at total annihilation could not only shift Israel into a lose-lose dynamic but also bring it into direct confrontation with Iran, potentially leading to a disastrous situation.

Israel does possess robust options for striking back, including targeting Iran’s strategic infrastructure, which may encompass not just suspected nuclear sites but also high-profile targets among Iran's proxies. On the other hand, Iran's capacity for a direct high-intensity response is limited. Historically, Iran has opted to respond through its proxies—seizing Israeli vessels following attacks and utilising the Houthis and Hezbollah to engage from both land and sea fronts against the US and Israel.

Reflecting on Iran’s response to the US’s assassination of General Soleimani in January 2020, it's evident that Iran’s retaliation was notably restrained. They launched a missile strike on an Iraqi air base housing US military personnel, which resulted in zero fatalities. This cautious approach underscores Iran's limited capacity to engage in direct confrontations with a highly asymmetrical force like the US. However, in the current situation, Iran is taking greater risks, possibly because the likelihood of direct US involvement seems minimal.

The repercussions of Iran’s risk-taking—whether due to calculated decisions or miscalculations—are potentially grave, with no clear endpoint. Iran’s continued determination to maintain a stance of resistance against Israel carries the risk of heightening the conflict into a lose-lose dynamic, potentially leading to what could be characterised as a total annihilation stage. This not only threatens regional stability but also emphasises the perilous path of escalating military confrontations without clear exit strategies.

The Deterrence Gameplay

In 1991, Iraq attempted to entangle and divert the attention of Western allies by compelling Israel to enter the fray through scud missile attacks. However, the United States intervened, ensuring that Israel did not retaliate or join the conflict, which helped prevent further escalation. Similarly, in 1980, the U.S. employed horizontal escalation tactics in Western Europe to challenge and deter the Warsaw Pact's expansion and operational activities. The concept of deterrence in conflict escalation management fundamentally relies on the principles of denial and punishment.

In the current Iran-Israel confrontation, deterrence operates through both denial and punishment. The U.S. aims to prevent Israel from escalating the conflict while also ready to punish Iran should it escalate further. Despite this, the efficacy of deterrence through denial appears to be waning as Israel aggressively pursues its strategic objectives, sometimes independently of the U.S. However, there is a caveat: the U.S. exercises this denial in a limited fashion, primarily for two reasons: firstly, to augment its strategic and operational influence in the Middle East, thereby preventing Russia from gaining any leverage, and secondly, to counter Iran's capability to wage a proxy war.

While U.S. deterrence may seem limited, it remains effective to a degree. For Israel, the U.S. is a crucial political and strategic necessity; for Iran, it represents a formidable asymmetrical adversary. This constrained application of U.S. deterrence has established a boundary in the conflict, which, at the very least, prevents Iran-Israel from plunging into a situation of complete disaster.

At The Probe, our commitment to social impact journalism is at the core of everything we do. Funded by well-meaning individuals from the public, our aim is to drive positive social change and make a real-world impact through the stories we report. If you wish to support us, please visit our Truth Brigade page and contribute to a cause that resonates with you the most. It is through your support that we have been able to keep the flame of our journalism alive in these difficult times. Click link to support us to make a difference: https://theprobe.in/truth-brigade