Strategic Shamelessness: Protecting Iran’s Nuclear Program and Regional Roles…Blessing Israel’s Objectives in Gaza

The military tension between Iran and Israel doesn't necessarily point to a major war threatening regional stability. However, if Israel strikes a reactor or nuclear facility, Tehran has pledged to retaliate by attacking nuclear sites within Israel – a clear red line. The current situation feels more like an unspoken understanding between two adversaries who have never fought a direct war. Their relationship exists in a state of unspoken truce, where their battleground is outside Iranian and Israeli territories. ?The latest round of confrontation broke the unspoken rule of avoiding direct attacks when Iran retaliated against Israel's targeting of the Quds Force leadership at the Iranian consulate in Damascus. Remarkably, this confrontation appears to have been telegraphed and coordinated through the Biden administration. Iranian Foreign Minister Amir Abdollahian said that his country informed the United States before and after the operation, stating, " We made it very clear in these conversations, we told the Israelis that Iran does not want escalation." So what happens next? Who benefits from these events? And who pays the price?

The winners are primarily Iran and Israel. The losers are the Palestinians in Gaza, whom Israel does not intend to allow to return from forced displacement. Rather, Israel wants to advance its attack on Rafah to eliminate Hamas' infrastructure in the tunnels with implicit American and European approval, while issuing Gazans only promises of humanitarian relief.

The other losers are the countries that have become areas for proxy wars, namely Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, which Iran, Israel, the Biden administration, and European governments all agree to exploit as a shameless pretext to avoid a direct Iranian Israeli confrontation.

This level of strategic shamelessness is unparalleled. Previously, when the administration of former President Barack Obama and its European allies begged Iran to agree to the nuclear deal, they all decided to acquiesce to Iran's condition not to interfere in its regional policies. Thus, they endorsed Iran’s doctrine of using proxies to trample on the sovereignty of four Arab countries and to strike at their security and stability in service of the rulers in Tehran. Today, that strategic shamelessness has reached a stunning level under the pretext of saving the region from devastating regional wars.

No regional war will break out as long as the historical Iranian-Israeli mutual appeasement continues, and the Biden administration continues to sponsor implicit understandings in this framework. The dangerous game has ended. There will be no bilateral war or sudden attacks. Coordinated skirmishes will persist, proxy wars will continue, and Israel will maintain its shadow war with Iran, and vice versa, within regulated "rules of engagement."

Both sides will now refrain from striking each other forcefully and will settle for minor operations to save face. They will both utilize Arab territories for retaliatory actions through proxies, in blatant disregard for the sovereignty and people of Arab countries with implicit international approval.

An Iranian-Israeli war is unlikely as both sides enjoy safety and transitional peace despite the game of mutually retaliatory hostilities.

Iran's most significant gain from its calculated and coordinated drone and missile attack on Israel is the domestic support it rallied for the regime in Tehran. This served to contain dissent within the domestic public opinion by dispelling the notion that the regime had become weak, a paper tiger.

Furthermore, the Iranian government has imposed its calculations and priorities on the United States and European countries to safeguard its own interests, particularly in preventing Israel from targeting Iranian nuclear facilities and thereby thwarting Iran's nuclear program, which has made significant strides towards acquiring a nuclear bomb.

According to reliable information, the Biden administration has warned Israel against any unilateral actions to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, making it clear that Israel would stand alone in such a scenario and would not receive the necessary air cover from the US. This was a clear message conveyed not only by Washington to Israel but also by the European countries involved in deterring Iranian missile attacks against Israel.

Thus, whether these drone and missile attacks were serious or symbolic, they have compelled the Biden administration and its allies to adopt a stance of protecting Iran's nuclear program from Israeli interference. This is of utmost importance and seriousness.

The potential American-European reward to Israel for refraining from striking Iranian nuclear facilities may be giving tacit approval for an operation in Rafah, as reported. This also presents a dangerous trade-off with significant implications. Among these is Tehran's willingness to sacrifice not only Palestine, which it claims to champion to bolster its regional standing, but also Hamas, which has apparently outlived its usefulness and is now beyond salvation.

This brings us to Iran's third achievement, which is sending a message to all actors in the Middle East that, after demonstrating its capability and readiness to launch missiles at Israel, Iran is a regional force to be reckoned with, akin to Israel's regional power. This positioning cannot be underestimated in the regional power dynamics.

While it's true that Iran has initiated a new phase in relations with Saudi Arabia, there are no indications that it intends to revise its doctrine to cease using proxies in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. It's also true that Israel wants to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia, yet it refuses so far to provide the necessary prerequisites, notably recognizing the inherent Palestinian rights to statehood. Instead, Israel adheres to its fundamental doctrine of forcibly displacing Palestinians, seizing their homes and land to complete once and for all its occupation and then remove that word from existence. Thus, Iran and Israel once again converge in tactical manoeuvring aimed at diminishing Arab influence in the strategic equation.

How do the roles of Iran’s partners and proxies' figure in the equation of appeasement and carefully calculated escalations? The Iranian-backed Houthis will remain essential for Tehran as a tool in its tactics of coercion and intimidation with the United States, Europe, and Israel, while ensuring the protection of Chinese and Russian interests in the Red Sea. The security of international navigation in the Red Sea hinges on its value to Iranian interests. Yemen and its people remain hostage to Iran and the Houthis' leadership's short-sightedness, as the Houthis are aware they are expendable tools once their mission for Iranian interests, not Yemeni ones, is fulfilled.

Hezbollah will persist in what it perceives as a war of attrition against Israel through its northern front, but the reality is that the attrition is mutual, with the people of the south paying the price for Hezbollah's decision to serve Iran and its interests at the expense of Lebanon's national interest and its people. Iran's decision is to task Hezbollah with eroding Israeli self-confidence and continuing to play with its nerves. Unnerving Israel is part of Iran's strategy, at the expense of the nerves and security of the Lebanese to strike more than one bird with a stone. Tehran and Hezbollah are betting on Israel's inability to launch a comprehensive serious attack on Hezbollah's infrastructure in Lebanon as long as its hands are tied in Gaza, and as long as the attrition is constrained within the rules of engagement and within the framework of Iranian interests and considerations.

Iraq serves as a free arena for Iran to use through its affiliated factions as it sees fit. As for Syria, it remains an open arena for Israel, intending to send messages to Tehran, sniping at it while avoiding Iranian territory.

Israel's range of options in the cat-and-mouse game with Iran primarily involves the Syrian arena. Striking Iranian sites in Syria might be one of the easiest options as it would not incur international repercussions on Israel, and taking out Iranian generals in Syria is much easier than targeting them within Iranian territory. If Israel's is to target figures in the Iranian regime, the most crucial question would be: Where? Inside Iran or in Syria?

Targeting Iranian oil tankers in the Red Sea is included in Israel's array of options as a response to Iran's previous direct attack on Israel, but this option would unsettle everyone due to its impact on global oil prices.

China has publicly taken stances to influence Iran and push it to settle for limited retaliation, affirming its opposition to a regional war. The relationship between China and Iran is not only about oil but is also military and strategic. China also has ties with Israel in the high-tech sector, which it highly values.

It is likely that Israel will adopt Iran's tactic of flexing muscles gently and smoothly, resorting to verbal escalation and settling for a limited response. Both parties seek a price and reward for de-escalating and postponing retaliation. Both seek a price from the United States and Europe. This price is not limited to weapons and ammunition for Israel or to securing Iran's nuclear program with promises of lifting sanctions. Both Iran and Israel adhere to an extremist ideology that also serves the other side. And both execute their strategies under cover of strategic shamelessness.