The risks of the Israeli-Iranian confrontation are rising.. Is Tel Aviv heading for a direct strike or neutralizing the arms?
While the first option seems radical and has an immediate impact, the second option carries complex field challenges that may exhaust Israel militarily and politically.
Direct strike: motives and risks
Speaking to Sky News Arabia, political researcher Mossadegh Pour indicated that Israel may take advantage of the current circumstances, with the escalation of economic pressures on Iran, to carry out a direct strike targeting the Iranian nuclear program. The program has been described as having reached a “point of no return,” which is also confirmed by French President Emmanuel Macron, who stressed that Iran poses a strategic and security challenge to the region and Europe.
Although Israeli motives for directly targeting Iran’s nuclear program appear strong and necessary from a security perspective, the risks involved should be taken into account.
The balance between achieving national security and confronting potential consequences constitutes a very important strategic challenge. Hence, Israel must think deeply about every step it takes, and search for the most effective and balanced solutions in a complex context controlled by regional and international powers.
Neutralizing the arms is an exhausting option
According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, the Houthis pose a “strategic dilemma” for Israel, as they are able to target Israeli cities with missiles, creating a state of constant attrition. However, some analysts consider that focusing on regional arms may prolong the conflict without achieving decisive results.
Challenges:
Military attrition: Operations against Iran’s arms may take a long time and consume Israel’s military resources.
Limited impact: Targeting the arms may not directly affect Iran’s nuclear capability or its regional policy.
The regional equation and Israel’s preparedness
Israeli officials revealed that the Chief of Staff issued instructions to raise the state of alert in anticipation of any scenario, including a possible Iranian pre-emptive strike.
On the other hand, Mossadeghpour points out that developments in Syria, including the decline of Iranian influence there, may ease tensions between Iran and Israel in the near term, but they do not eliminate the possibility of confrontation.
The policies of international powers and their influence
The American position plays a pivotal role in determining the course of the crisis. With talk of Donald Trump’s possible return to power, Washington may adopt tougher policies toward Tehran, including supporting a direct Israeli strike.
Reports indicate that the Trump administration was already considering military options against Iran if diplomatic efforts failed.
Israel faces a complex strategic dilemma: Should it choose a direct strike that might lead to a comprehensive confrontation but carries the potential to achieve decisive results? Or will it continue its current strategy by focusing on neutralizing Iran’s regional arms, despite the risk of attrition?
Mossadeghpour stresses the importance of Israel following an “integrated strategy” that takes into account the complexities of the regional and international scene, while realizing that the confrontation with Iran will not be just a single military step, but rather a series of ongoing challenges that require strong alliances and careful crisis management.
