Thread by @MCIAZayyan

The world nervously waits for what could trigger a devastating conflict — Iran may soon directly respond to Israel after airstrikes on Iran's embassy in Damascus.

This would be the first time either country has directly & openly struck the other.

Here are some thoughts:

Israeli intel sees the Iranian retaliation coming through its own forces, & not Hezbollah. What could this look like? Perhaps retaliation could come via Iran's assortment of ballistic missiles, suicide drones, & other weapons. All of this could happen alongside cyber attacks.

When will they strike? That's uncertain. However, the "immediate response" window is now closed, as it's been days since the Israeli strikes. Tehran might wait until after Ramadan, but retaliation could also come sooner.

Both Israel and Iran have their forces on high alert, and various preparations and discussions have taken place, including non-military preparations.

This time, it's unlikely the Iranians are going to coordinate a "way out" response with Washington, targeting US forces. However, there's the possibility of coordination that sees the US stay out the way of Iran's response. Of course, this leaves Israel feeling extremely anxious.

Given the nature, implications, and symbolism around Israel's airstrikes, the Iranians feel forced to retaliate forcefully and directly this time, in order to reinforce deterrence and demonstrate a willingness to escalate — the consequences for going up against Iran.

Escalating so drastically with Israel is something Iran didn't really want to have to do. Why? Because Iran has been in the driving seat for a long time.

The Iranians know they're viewed as a regional reality (and perhaps even more...) by the Biden administration, and many bigwigs. The Iranians have the entire Middle East on their toes, thanks to their successful geopolitical maneuvering and extensive proxy/ally network.

But it's about end goals...

Tehran's ambitions are to advance its nuclear program and maintain its dominance through its proxy/allied forces (such as Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and others.).

Iran have done this successfully so far, even though many of these proxies are independently engaged in various levels of conflict with state-level actors.

This is why Iran has generally refused to escalate tensions by retaliating too forcefully to Israel, or the US. The status quo suits Iran.

But Tehran cannot afford to let the Israeli attack slide, as it would diminish its image of invulnerability, the regime's legitimacy, and could invite further military action from Israel and others.

An Iranian retaliation may prompt another from Israel closer to home. Essentially, Israel is forcing Iran's hand.

Again, Iran's primary interest is the protection of its regime, but strategically, it is the protection of its nuclear program. Protection of its proxies is secondary, but intertwined.

The Iranians view Hezbollah as the first line of defense for their nuclear program. This brings us to Iran's challenge of whether to intervene on Hezbollah's behalf if Israel were to target it, further explaining why Iran hasn't escalated significantly via Hezbollah.

Hezbollah itself does not want to be drawn into a conflict on its own with Israel when their security guarantees from Iran are uncertain.

In Gaza, Israel has failed to achieve any significant strategic objectives, despite temporarily neutering Hamas' full-scale offensive capabilities — which would have been a smaller, yet important part of Iran's proxy and ally strategy in case of a full-scale war with Israel.

Israel may barely have the resources for a full-scale conflict with Hezbollah, but they definitely do not have the resources for a full-scale protracted conflict with Iran and their proxies...

In a full scale conflict, the Iranian military and proxies could cause unthinkable, long lasting, irreversible and potentially existential damage to Israel.

While Israel hasn't really achieved what they would've liked in Gaza, whether related to the hostages, or clear elimination of Hamas, they still mull whether to conduct operations in Rafah.

Egypt may consider those operations on its borders a red line, and have built up significant offensive military capabilities in Sinai in anticipation — is it in preparation of an influx of Palestinian refugees, or to ward off Israel?

If Israeli security was threatened by one country, it could be threatened by several countries. It could trigger an escalation from all other interested parties... any of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and even Jordan — Israel could find itself in a multi-front war.

In Jordan itself, we see increasing protests from the massive Palestinian population, which has a direct effect on Jordanian security and Amman's interests. Though Amman, like most countries would prefer that there was no escalation of conflict.

Then there's Syria, which has nothing but bitterness towards Israel. That airstrike on the Iranian embassy was certainly not the only airstrike Israel has done in Syria. Oh, there's also that schtick with the Golan Heights, which Damascus enviously eyes retaking.

No surprise then that the international community, including Israel's Western allies, and the regional, stable Middle Eastern countries have all found it very important, especially recently, to ramp up pressure on Israel to end this war.

Israel has been increasingly admonished by the international community for its heavy-handedness and lack of a clear solution to the war in Gaza, which is now affecting domestic politics in many of Israel's allied nations.

So, would the US step in if Israel were to face an existential threat, or a non-existential full-scale war with Iran (or others...)?

No surprise Iran feels confident.

- Israel locked down in a conflict with many different state & non-state actors & standoffs with others
- Israel so far received only constrained support from traditional allies like the US
- Israel has been unable to find a way out.

While Israel are in a bad position, the Iranians are getting closer to completing their nuclear program. This is everything they wanted. That's why the Iranians have not wanted to escalate the conflict.

It was a high-risk move by Israel to target the Iranian embassy, but it will now be up to Iran to strike with a measured response. Whatever happens, an inevitable escalation may have started with Israel's strikes.

However, it's important to note that these are explorations of security dynamics, and not outright predictions. Nobody can claim to know what is going to happen, even if they guess correctly.

Now, let's look at Israel...

Netanyahu's fate is uncertain, and certainly uncomfortable. The drama over judicial reforms played a role, but everyone in Israel now blames him for a lapse in security over the October massacre, & everything since.

The Israeli opposition may now call for elections towards the end of the year. However, until now, they have preferred to let Netanyahu continue to take the flak from everyone in Israel and the international community.

The continuation of conflict has kept Netanyahu where he is. The opposition would prefer he got all the blame as they would have to clean all this up if they came to power. However, they still have to clean it up. Maybe they can come up with a settlement he's is comfortable with.

But it seems that the Israeli opposition has as little idea as Bibi on how to fix the immediate security crisis without breaking it more to "fix" it fully.

So, Israel is in a precarious position:

1. Iran could achieve nuclear security
2. A nuclear-armed Iran could invigorate its proxies and allies, including Hezbollah
3. Israel's failure to address the Hamas threat in Gaza not only persists but also undermines its military and strategic credibility.
4. Regional actors increasingly view Israel as the principal facilitator of insecurity.
5. The international community faces growing domestic pressure to withdraw support for Israel. The Gaza conflict has particularly affected politics in the US and UK, where public opinion is increasingly critical of Israel's actions. It has also affected ties or the establishment of ties with Gulf countries.
6. Israeli soft power has diminished globally, with a notable increase in vociferous anti-Israel sentiment. This shift not only affects Israel's international standing but also raises concerns about the safety of Jewish communities abroad. Israel itself is increasingly unsafe for Jews, as October and subsequent months have proven.
7. The Israeli economy, already impacted by the war, faces further challenges. Global perceptions of the conflict and its aftermath seriously affect Israel's ability to secure favourable support, economic trade, even aid, and investment. They also have to mop up the mess from Netanyahu's tenure, but still have an uncertain political and geopolitical climate to navigate.

So, how to solve this?

Well, which side wants to? One side wants a lot back that they've lost, the other doesn't want to give up what they've gained. Others are looking only for ways out for themselves, not solutions for everyone else that they'll end up leaving in the mess they've created.

Whatever happens, the damage has been done to the psyche of both sides, and to that of the rest of the world that is watching. There will be long lasting implications for Israel, both for its soft power, and its immediate security. The same is obviously true for the Palestinians.

There's plenty more I think about all this, but feel less inclined to say. I've aimed for neutrality and do not endorse either side. These are just my mostly honest views.

Writing all this, I'd forgotten that we still have to wait and see what Iran's retaliation ends up being. Let's hope for the best for all sides, because it's going from utterly brutal, to even more terrifying.