The first direct military confrontation between Israel and Iran was a strategic turning point in the Middle East and beyond. The war in Gaza, which has largely provided the trigger for this, drawing most of the attention, at least for now.
However, the Iranian missile attack has shifted their approach from indirect confrontation, which has been going on for years, to direct conflict. This has strategic implications that require both countries, the Americans, and a range of players in the region and beyond to consider the consequences and necessary steps to rebalance forces to prevent a wider escalation.
It must be acknowledged that red lines, which have already been crossed, were drawn and shaped over the years between Iran and Israel, within which both sides were willing to contain the proxy war between them, the Israeli attacks in Syria, and a series of incidents in Iran that were attributed to Israel, both in a deliberate and unintentional manner.
The war in Gaza has sharpened the ability, and perhaps also the readiness of the sides to adhere to these red lines. Israel is dealing with a multi-front confrontation, and Iran has sought to pressure Israel, as well as (and perhaps mainly) the United States, through indirect means via the "axis of resistance" it cultivated in the region.
The trigger that violated these rules of the game is the war in Gaza, but more specifically the attack attributed to Israel on the Iranian consulate in Damascus. A series of question marks arise from the event: Did Israel not consider the repercussions of a direct attack on Iran's diplomatic facility? Did it understand and act nonetheless? Could Tehran really not afford to endure such an attack? Or did it assess that the circumstances were favorable to draw red lines?
In any case, intensive effort is required to establish new red lines. It can be assumed that in Jerusalem and Tehran, they are diligently analyzing the implications arising from the attack and response.
The four steps to reduce tensions between Iran and Israel
At this time, four main points can be highlighted:
- Clarifying the need for new red lines. It can be argued that the direct confrontation helped sharpen the understanding of the deterrence balance between the countries. Even so, it is necessary to ensure that both "agree" to this.
- Creating an indirect but reliable "communication channel" between Israel and Iran to prevent misinterpretation of intentions by both sides. There are several candidates for such a channel, for example Oman or Qatar, with extensive experience in this type of diplomacy.
- Ending the war in Gaza. Its conclusion, without delving into the way it needs to be done, is imperative to prevent an escalation that seems unwanted by anyone. The Americans play a critical role in this.
- United States involvement in the Middle East. The war in Gaza and the Israeli-Iranian confrontation have highlighted more than ever the fact that Washington cannot afford to "turn down" its involvement in the region. This may have negative implications for our region, and no less importantly for the powers of China and Russia.
And that's not even mentioning the Iran nuclear program.