WE COULD BE ON BRINK OF A CATACLYSMIC MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT

FOR much of this year the world has been fixated by fears of nuclear Armageddon erupting over North Korea. But alarming developments over a 48-hour period last week in the Middle East remind us of the even greater likelihood of conventional warfare on a cataclysmic scale in the region.

Now that its heavyweights – Israel and Iran – have traded blows for the very first time, we ignore that threat at our peril.

After 20 Iranian rockets were fired from Syria at military positions held by the Jewish state on the Golan Heights, Israel responded by launching dozens of missiles at Iranian forces in Syria early on Thursday.

They hit a radar station, air defences and an ammunition dump – killing at least 23 people, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Iran’s rockets – fired by the Quds Force, a wing of the Revolutionary Guards – either fell short of their targets or were knocked out by Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ defence system.

This is not all-out war, but it certainly takes us to the brink.

In the Middle East, two major conflicts have been simmering side by side for years – the Arabs versus the Israelis, and the Shi’ite Muslims against the Sunni Muslims.

Last week’s events seem about to drag them together into a gigantic and highly unstable flashpoint.

Iran, which is not an Arab nation, is the chief Shi’ite power.

Since the revolution of 1979 which overthrew the pro-Western, modernising Shah and imposed the harsh religious rule of the Ayatollahs, it has been spreading radicalism. The regime detests the West: it refers to America as the Great Satan.

Iraq is dominated by Shi’ites, as is Lebanon after Hezbollah, the paramilitary party that is allied to Iran and loathes Israel, won this month’s general election.

The Ayatollahs in Iran back the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. Surrounded by hostile pro-Western nations, Iran needs all the allies it can find to help protect its regional interests. Support for Syria also allows it to station forces far to the west of its own borders. Those forces, as we are seeing, are within easy striking distance of Israel. But that’s only half the story.

Tensions are also at breaking point between Shi’ite Iran and Saudi Arabia, the leading Sunni country. The two nations have been fighting a proxy war in Yemen, with the Iranian-backed forces enjoying most success.

However, it is Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states which control a majority of the region’s colossal oil resources. Now, many hardliners in Tehran are saying that, with Iran’s superior military power, it could seize those oilfields if it wanted.

And the ultra-hardliners in Tehran, who are even more numerous, welcome that plan because it would inevitably bring America and its allies (including the UK) into a war they know America and its allies wouldn’t have the stomach to fight. With such immense conventional forces arrayed on both sides, Iranian military planners believe the result would likely be a stalemate.

While Iran would be prepared to take hundreds of thousands of casualties, they are betting that the Western allies would not.

That would be seen in the Middle East as a win for Iran. If the Great Satan cannot overcome its enemy, its enemy is victorious.

No matter how much Europe would want to stay out of another Gulf War, it’s naïve to imagine for one moment that it could do so.

For one thing, the Americans would expect the support of Britain and Nato. For another, America and its allies rely on the Middle East’s oil.

Last week, Donald Trump decided to tear up the 2015 agreement which reduced economic sanctions on Iran in return for a freeze on nuclear development.

The idea of provoking more conflict, and giving Tehran an excuse to restart its experiments with enriched uranium, seems wilfully reckless.

But the US president has a rationale for his action. He argues his aggressive tactics over North Korea have forced dictator Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table.

When president Barack Obama began talks with Iran to persuade them to abandon their nuclear programme, much was made of an ‘Axis of Evil’ – a loose alliance of Iran, North Korea and other rogue states, intent on global mayhem.

But what Trump has proved in his face-off with ‘Little Rocket Man’ Kim is that Obama’s evil axis is an illusion. North Korea isn’t interested in Iran. Trump hopes that by reimposing sanctions, he will force the Ayatollahs back to the table – and this time they will agree not only to cancel their nuclear weapons programme but also to cut their military forces and withdraw from Syria. But there are two difficulties. Firstly, with America ending the trade deal, in economic terms Iran has nothing left to lose. In theory, it can still deal with Europe (which continues to support the 2015 deal); in practice, it can’t buy any items that rely on US digital technology, such as the Airbus planes it desires, and it can’t borrow from international banks that have dealings with America (which means all international banks).

Secondly, Iran is not a one-man dictatorship. Power is shared between religious, political and military leaders, all competing to prove they are more hardline than the next, all convinced America isn’t prepared for a ground war fought to the last man. It’s true the US doesn’t want to commit ground troops. And Israel is anxious to avoid an enemy with long experience of guerrilla warfare.

That’s why the Israeli response to Iran’s failed missile attack was so swift and emphatic. ‘If it rains on us, it will storm on them,’ warned Israel’s defence minister Avigdor Lieberman. Iran is promising to respond, though this does not necessarily mean an allout missile attack. Reprisals could be terrorist attacks, in the Middle East or further afield.

Whatever happens, we are closer to open war between Iran and Israel, with the Saudis and US potentially being drawn in, than we have ever been.

Is there any chink of hope? Curiously, there is and it comes from an improbable source.

Russia, which has been so belligerent over Ukraine and Syria, does not want to see Iran dominate the Middle East where it now has interests. So Vladimir Putin may hold the balance of power here.

Significantly, the Israeli PM was in Moscow last week to mark the Russian victory over the Nazis. Strange as it may seem, because he can talk to all sides, Putin could be the leader who can avert a Third World War.