Iran attack highlights shadow war and triggers fears of wider conflict

Iran’s massive attack on Israel over the weekend exposed the decades-long dark war between the two countries, highlighting a spiraling conflict that threatens to become even more dangerous in the future.

Iran’s brazen attack, which included some 300 ballistic and cruise missiles along with explosive drones, was largely defeated by Israeli and allied defense systems.

But Tehran’s bold decision to directly launch an attack against Israel for the first time underscores the volatile path both nations find themselves on. Whether they continue to swing toward a broader war largely depends on how Israeli authorities decide to retaliate.

“We are already in the broader conflict we say we are trying to avoid,” said Gene Moran, a retired Navy captain who is now an associate professor of public policy at Florida State University.

Jonathan Panikoff, director of the Atlantic Council’s Middle East initiative, said the attack on Iran has the effect of bringing the Iran-Israel battle “out of the shadows and into the light.”

“What is clear is that this is the beginning of a new era in which Iran is willing to respond directly to Israeli attacks and, in doing so, risks retaliation against the Iranian homeland,” he said. wrote in a review.

A focus of the Biden administration, even since Hamas’ initial attack on Israel in October that killed nearly 1,200 people, has been to prevent the emergence of a broader war.

Although Israel’s response to Hamas – an attack on Gaza that killed 32,000 people – led to international protests, it did not create a regional war.

An attack on an Iranian consulate in Syria earlier this month, blamed on Israel, killed members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and led to Iran’s counterattack.

President Biden reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to assume “victory” over Iran, saying the US would not support a retaliatory attack on Tehran.

But the Israeli War Cabinet is still debating the issue, and the chances of further skirmishes and a larger war are greater than before.

Kiron Skinner, a former Pentagon adviser on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, said any Israeli counterattack could further escalate tensions.

“This could be a very, very deadly conflict that would affect every part of the globe,” said Skinner, also a former State Department official.

There are reasons to think that Israel could choose not to fight back.

Its forces, with some help from the US and other allies, have stopped the vast majority of Iranian missiles and drones. No Israelis were killed and there was only minor damage to infrastructure. The international community condemned Iran and supported Israel most of the time.

White House national security spokesman John Kirby said Israel’s response was “an Israeli decision to make.”

“The president since the beginning of this conflict on October 7th has been firm and consistent,” he told reporters on Monday. “We don’t want to see a war with Iran. We don’t want to see a broader regional conflict. We will do whatever is necessary to defend Israel.”

Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi said in a statement Monday that authorities are still “considering” measures but appeared to suggest there will be a response.

“This launch of so many missiles, cruise missiles and [drones] on the territory of the State of Israel will receive a response,” he said, according to a statement carried by Israeli media.

Shortly after the missiles were fired on Saturday night, Iran said the matter could be “concluded” and that Tehran was ready to move forward. But it threatened to respond more aggressively if Israel retaliated.

“If the Israeli regime plans to continue its evil actions against Iran, by any means or methods or at any level, it will receive a response ten times harsher”, reads a statement shared by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and shared by the state media agency.

Iranian authorities publicly warned for more than a week that forces would attack, defeating the element of surprise.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) said the Iranian attack was likely “intended to cause significant damage below the threshold that would trigger a massive Israeli response.”

The ISW also said the attack was more limited than expected because Iran “underestimated the enormous advantages that Israel has in defending against such attacks compared to Ukraine.”

Retired General Frank McKenzie, former head of US Central Command, said it was “absolutely absurd” that Iran had scaled back its attack, saying Tehran acted out of “desperation”.

“This was a maximum effort,” he said in a webinar Monday with the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA).

McKenzie said Iran has launched most of its ballistic missiles capable of reaching the country and has prepared heavily for the response. “It was an indiscriminate effort. It was designed to seriously harm Israel.”

Either way, the world now looks to Israel as officials ponder a response. World leaders from France, Germany and Britain urged Israel not to respond and to calm the situation.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, condemned the attack on Iran in a Security Council meeting Sunday but called for more restraint.

“It’s time to step back from the abyss,” he said. “It is vital to avoid any military action that could lead to major military clashes on multiple fronts in the Middle East. Civilians are already bearing the brunt and paying the highest price.”

Retired Israeli Maj. Gen. Yaakov Amidror, a former national security adviser to the country’s prime minister, said Israel must take into account several factors when evaluating a response, including the ongoing war in Gaza and the conflict with Hezbollah in north, along with the position of the USA.

Still, he said in a webinar that Israel may try to retaliate to avoid being seen as “fearful” or “weak” by other nations in the region.

“The natural reaction of most Israelis: ‘Let’s do something,’” said Amidror, now a member of JINSA.

Yaacov Ayish, also a retired major general and JINSA’s senior vice president for Israeli affairs, said that there are other ways to counterattack Iran outside of direct military action and that “the reaction should not be emotional.”

“It seems to me that many Israelis [tend to react] to things in an emotional way, and I hope it doesn’t seep into our leadership rooms as they assess the situation,” he said.

Avi Melamed, a former Israeli intelligence official, said the lack of response to Iran will create “additional risk to Israel of future attacks from Iran and other enemies” and predicted a response in the “near future.”

“It is very possible that Israel will respond to the direct attack with a series of covert operations within Iranian borders,” he said in an email.