After firing some from Iran 180 ballistic missiles in Israel, overnight the Middle East once more found itself getting ready to a costly and devastating regional war. Israel and its ally, the United States, shot down a lot of the rockets.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately announced retaliation for the attack. He he called it “a big mistake” for which Iran will “pay”.

The strike marked a dramatic shift in Iran’s calculus after weeks of escalating Israeli attacks on the leaders of its proxy groups, Hamas and Hezbollah, and their forces in Gaza and Lebanon.

Iran has traditionally outsourced its fighting to Hezbollah and Hamas. She was very concerned about the opportunity of being drawn into direct confrontation with Israel due to the implications for the ruling regime – namely the possible internal dissent and chaos that any war with Israel could cause.

When Hamas political leader Ismail Haniya was killed in Tehran in late July, Iran’s leaders said they might respond appropriately. They principally left it to Hezbollah.

And as Israel has intensified its military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon in recent weeks, one other Iranian proxy group, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, he claimed to have retaliated firing missiles and drones at Israeli cities and US destroyers in the Red Sea. Israel responded air attacks on Yemen.

In this context, from the Iranian standpoint, it looked like Iran was simply sitting on the fence and never playing its leadership role in difficult Israel. Therefore, to a large extent, Iran had to fulfill its role because the leader of the so-called “axis of resistance” and join the fight.

The fight against Israel is basically a pillar of state identity in Iran. The Iranian political establishment is predicated on the principle of difficult the United States and liberating Palestinian lands occupied by Israel. These things are rooted in the identity of the Iranian state. Therefore, if Iran doesn’t follow this principle, it runs a serious risk of undermining its own identity.

A fragile balancing act

However, this kind of direct attack by Iran carries serious risks.

Domestically, the Iranian political regime is affected by a serious crisis of legitimacy. There have been many popular uprisings in Iran in recent years. These include the bigWomen, life, freedom” movement that erupted after Mahsa Amini allegedly died in police custody worn incorrectly her hijab.

There can be a large dissenting opinion in Iran that questions the regime’s anti-American and anti-Israel state identity and its involvement in constant conflict with each countries.

The Iranian authorities subsequently feared that a direct confrontation with Israel and the United States would raise internal voices of dissent and seriously threaten the regime’s survival. It is that this existential threat that stops Iran from acting on its principles.

Moreover, Iran has a latest president, Masoud Pezeshkian, who belongs to the reformist camp and has a program to improve Iran’s relations with the West. Which he was talking about reviving the Iran nuclear agreement with the international community, sending signals that Iran is prepared to talk with the Americans.

The problem is that regional dynamics have completely modified for the reason that agreement was negotiated with the Obama administration in 2015. Iran has been a pariah state in recent years – and much more so for the reason that conflict between Israel and Hamas began a yr ago.

Since then, no Western country would consider it appropriate or politically expedient to engage in nuclear talks with Iran to ease international sanctions on the regime. Not at a time when Iran is openly calling for the destruction of Israel, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in their attacks on Israel, and now engaging in confrontations with Israel itself.

The timing is subsequently disastrous for Pezeshkian’s program to repair the damage done to Iran’s global position.

Ultimately, nonetheless, it will not be the president who decides in Iran – it’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Supreme National Security Council who consider problems with war and peace and judge on a plan of action. The supreme leader can be the top of state and appoints the top of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

IRGC generals have advocated for more serious and decisive motion against Israel for the reason that Gaza war began. And it looks just like the supreme leader has finally heeded that advice.

Thus, the regime maintains a delicate balance of the next aspects:
preserving Iran’s state identity and what it represents in the region, in addition to the necessity to contain internal dissent and ensure its survival.

Under normal circumstances, it was easy for Iran to maintain this balance. It could manage its domestic opponents through brute force or concessions and advocate an aggressive foreign policy in the region.

Now the dimensions has tipped. From the Iranian perspective, Israel has been so brazen in its actions against its proxies that it simply didn’t look good for Iran to proceed to sit on the fence and take no motion.

As such, it has turn into more essential for Iran to emphasize its anti-American and anti-Israel state identity and maybe deal with a suitable level of risk from increased domestic dissent.

Where is that this going?

By attacking Israel, Iran can be prepared for one more risk – direct retaliation from Israel and the outbreak of total war.

According to Netanyahu’s playbook, the conflict in the region really continues. Was supporting for striking Iran and for the United States targeting Iran. Now Israel has justification to retaliate against Iran and drag the United States into the conflict.

Unfortunately, Iran is now also prepared for the complete Persian Gulf to turn into embroiled in the conflict, as any retaliation by Israel and maybe the United States would expose American assets in the Persian Gulf, such as naval ships and merchant ships, to attacks by Iran or its allies . This could have serious consequences for trade and security in the region.

Things are heading in that direction. Iran would know that striking Israel would trigger Israeli retaliation and that this retaliation would likely come with U.S. support. Iran appears willing to bear the prices.

How rather more dangerous has the Middle East turn out to be in recent weeks?

The Middle East is in a rather more unstable situation than it was a yr ago. This conflict has spread far beyond fighting, mainly between Israel and Hamas.

Currently, Israel and Hezbollah are engaged in a conflict that has developed over the past yr and which appears to be more dangerous than the Israel-Hamas conflict. This involves exploitation Israeli special operations unitswhich have been secretly operating in Lebanon in small groups since November 2023. Moreover, Israel was accused by Hezbollah of conducting unconventional military operations – like exploding walkie-talkies and pagers – and launched lots of of air and missile attacks in Lebanon over the previous few weeks. The combination of those operations destroyed Hezbollah’s weapons caches and military infrastructure killed several senior leaders of the groupincluding Hassan Nasrallah.

The human costs of those attacks are significant because over 1,000 people died in Lebanon. It is unclear how a lot of this number were killed and injured actually Hezbollah fighters.

Israel and Hezbollah recently had one direct war in 2006which lasted 34 days and over 1,500 people died between Lebanese civilians and Hezbollah fighters. Since then, Israel and Hezbollah have been waging a shadow war – but not with the intensity and every day pattern we saw after October. 7 landscape.

Today, the conflict may spread well beyond the region and even to the entire world.

What does Iran have to do with the conflict between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah?

Iran said fired rockets to Israel in retaliation for attacks on Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iranian army.

Coalition of groups and organizations now tagged as “Iranian”Axis of Resistance” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini and senior military commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, have issued unified guidelines to all different elements, whether it is Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Houthi rebels in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon or Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria.

Before October 7, 2023, all of those groups were ideologically opposed to Israel to some extent. But additionally they struggled with their very own conflicts and didn’t rally around supporting Hamas. Now everyone has turn out to be more energetic around the common goal of destroying Israel.

In particular, Iran and Hezbollah have a deep relationship that dates back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In 1982, Israel invaded southern Lebanon to thwart cross-border activities attacks the Palestine Liberation Organization and other Palestinian groups attacked Israel. Newly created Iranian The IRGC sent advisers and trainers to the south Lebanon to cooperate with like-minded Lebanese Shiite fighters who were already fighting there Civil war in Lebanon. They wanted to fight the Israeli army and elements of the so-called a multinational force consisting of American, French and other Western troops originally sent as peacekeepers to put an end to the fighting.

How does Hezbollah’s history help explain its actions today?

Relationships between Iranian experts and Lebanese fighters during Lebanon’s 15-year civil war led to the creation of Hezbollah as a small, secret group in 1982.

Over the next few years, Hezbollah launched a brutal campaign of terrorist attacks against American, French and other Western interests in Lebanon. The group then often known as Islamic Jihad was the first to attack US Embassy in Beirut on April 18, 1983. This attack killed 52 Lebanese and American embassy employees. However, at the time, U.S. intelligence personnel and other security experts were unsure who was accountable for the embassy bombing. And given this lack of information and insight into the matter Hezbollah as an emerging terrorist threatthe group aimed even higher in 1983.

After the attack on the embassy, ​​Hezbollah carried out October 1983 Marine barracks bombing in which 241 American service members died. Before the 9/11 attacks, it was the largest single act of international terrorism against the US

Hezbollah was also responsible kidnapping and murder of American residentsincluding William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut. He also committed plane hijackings, including the infamous ones TWA 847 Incident in 1985, the yr a U.S. Navy diver was murdered.

Thus, Hezbollah has an extended history of regional and global terrorism.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah is a form of parallel government to Lebanon. The Lebanese government has allowed Hezbollah to be a state inside a state, nevertheless it doesn’t cooperate in military operations. Currently, the Lebanese army doesn’t respond to Israeli attacks on Lebanon. This shows how dominant Hezbollah has turn out to be.

How damaging are Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah?

Hezbollah clearly suffered fighter losses, but Hezbollah is a much larger group than Hamas and operates over a much larger physical territory throughout Lebanon.

It has a much larger stockpile of advanced weapons than Hamas ever had, and a big fighting force that encompasses it 40,000 to 50,000 regular forces organized in a standard military structure. It also has this 150,000 to 200,000 rocketsdrones and rockets of assorted ranges. He runs a dangerous global terrorist unit called the External Security Organization who attacked the interests of Israel and Jews in the US The Nineties in Argentina and Jewish tourists 2012 in Bulgaria.

The Israeli military estimates that it has destroyed no less than half of Hezbollah’s existing weapons stockpile, depending on volume and intensity their activities over the previous few weeks. If true, it will pose a major challenge to Hezbollah’s long-term operational capability, which has taken many years to achieve.

What security risk does this evolving conflict pose to the United States?

Looking at how Hezbollah has demonstrated these capabilities over the course of 40 years, and given Israel’s current attacks on this militant group, it will not be far-fetched to speculate that Hezbollah has ordered or is considering some form of terrorist attack far beyond the country’s borders in the region – similar to what the group did in Argentina in 1992 and 1994. It is unclear what this conspiracy would appear like, how many individuals can be involved, or the possible goal of such an attack.

Hezbollah leaders said they blamed Israel for the attacks on it. About every week before Nasrallah died he said Israeli pager and walkie-talkie explosions in Lebanon “declaration of war” and “the enemy has crossed all red lines.”

Since then, Hezbollah has remained defiant, despite the group’s significant losses to Israel over the past few weeks. Questions also remain about how Hezbollah’s leaders will similarly hold the United States accountable for Israel’s actions. And in that case, would this mean a return to the form of terrorism that Hezbollah inflicted on American interests in the region in the Nineteen Eighties? As recent events have shown, the world faces a dangerous and unstable security environment in the Middle East.

After the huge bombing of Lebanon, Israel launched a land invasion of its northern neighbor. Soldiers entered southern Lebanon in an try to push Hezbollah back across the Litani River, 29 kilometers from the border with Israel. The specific purpose is meant to facilitate the return of roughly 60,000 displaced Israelis to their homes in northern Israel.

By killing Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah and several other of his commanders over the weekend, Israel has already dealt a serious blow to the group.

This strengthened the position of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, regardless that most Israelis wanted him gone.

Israel is now able to repeat its operations in Gaza, Lebanon, with the goal of reordering the Middle East in its own interest. But has he bitten off greater than he can chew?

Balance sheet failed

Israel has been here before.

He invaded Lebanon all of the approach to the capital Beirut in 1982attempting to eliminate the Palestine Liberation Organization. It tried to suppress Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, which had existed since 1967. Israeli-Arab war.

1982 was also the yr of the creation of Hezbollah with the assistance of the recently established Islamic government in Iran.

Israel authorized its Lebanese Christian allies to accomplish that massacre tons of Palestinians within the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut. It also forced the Palestine Liberation Organization to maneuver its headquarters from Beirut to Tunisia.

Israel then established a security zone north of its border but faced stiff resistance from Hezbollah. As Israeli losses mounted, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak made a decision unilateral withdrawal in 2000.

The withdrawal strengthened Hezbollah’s popularity and strength as a powerful political and paramilitary force against Israel and its allies.

Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006 in an try to destroy Hezbollah. It failed to realize its goal. After 34 days of bloody fighting and significant costs for each side, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on a cease-fireand Hezbollah won.

A defiant war

Netanyahu is confident that he’ll succeed this time. He also has the support of his extremist ministers, especially the ministers of national security, finance and defense. He depends upon their support to survive in domestic politics.

Israel has more firepower than ever before. It showed this through the Gaza War, taking revenge for Hamas’ killing of over 1,000 Israelis and the kidnapping of roughly 240 Israeli and other residents October 7.

In scorched earth operations, the Israel Defense Forces razed swathes of the Gaza Strip and killed greater than 40,000 civilians – 35% of them children – and two million more were repeatedly displaced.

In this way, Netanyahu’s leaders ignored the norms of war, international humanitarian law, and the UN Security Council resolution for a ceasefire and a warning to the International Court of Justice against genocidal activities.

Moreover, he overtly rejected widespread condemnation of Israel’s actions around the globe.

His defiant stance is reinforced by Israel’s ironclad military, financial and economic support. Washington has just approved a further $8.7 billion (roughly A$12.5 billion) aid package to support Israel’s campaign in Lebanon.

Netanyahu had no compelling reason to be sympathetic to Washington’s calls for restraint or a ceasefire.

Will it be different this time?

Netanyahu’s confidence is further strengthened by Israel’s nuclear capabilities. Although Israel has not declared it, it is reported to have it many nuclear weapons regional deterrence and military supremacy within the region.

Netanyahu and his supporters claim that their use of disproportionate force is justified in self-defense against the so-called terrorist tentacles (Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah) Iranian octopus. With the United States and several other of its Western and regional Arab allies sharing its position, Israel is once more specializing in the unfinished business of rooting out Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is a key element of Iran’s “axis of resistance” against Israel and the US. Netanyahu knows that the destruction of this group will mean parting Iran’s national and regional security system. He doesn’t hesitate to risk a direct confrontation with Iran, while being assured of full US support in such a case.

Tehran cannot be expected to desert Hezbollah, but it also has other priorities in domestic and foreign policy. Iran’s newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, took power promising to cut back theocratic political and social restrictions and improve the living conditions of most Iranians.

Pezeshkian can be committed to improving Iran’s regional and diplomacy, including reopening negotiations with the West (particularly the US) on nuclear programto finish the sanctions imposed by the US.

Pezeshkian appears to have the support of powerful Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has shown a willingness to be pragmatic when obligatory. His foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, stated that Hezbollah was capable of doing so defending himself.

For now, Tehran’s approach is as on previous occasions, to let Israel remain trapped in Lebanon.

Hezbollah will not be Hamas: it is broken, but still quite well armed and strategically placed. The group will be in a position to offer limitless resistance to the Israeli occupation. This could come at a high human and material cost to the Jewish state, which could also prevent many Israelis from returning home to northern Israel.

At this stage it is significant to recollect two points.

First, after a yr of disastrous campaign, Israel has still not managed to completely suppress Hamas resistance. The task of confronting Hezbollah in a ground war may prove way more difficult and dangerous.

Second, like Netanyahu, former US President George W. Bush sought to structure the Middle East according to US geopolitical preferences. He intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq under the guise of war on terrorism and promoting democracy.

However, America’s actions further destabilized the region.

Since World War II, the use of brute force has rarely served as a viable substitute for diplomacy in managing world problems.