Forces of caution

West, US have not supported Israel outright in clash with Iran. Arab countries too haven’t taken sides

IRAN’S PROMISED RETALIATION came after a fortnight of the Israeli airstrike on the country's consulate in Damascus, in the early hours of april 14. last week, swarms of attack dr ones and cruise and ballistic missiles were deployed in an unprecedented direct attack. Most of them were neutralised by Israel and its allies. However, a few ballistic missiles penetrated Israel’s formidable Iron Dome and struck the Nevatim and Ramon airbases in the southern Negev desert and a radar station in the north. Damage to infrastructure was minimal and no deaths were reported.

Even then, Israel declared the attack would not go unanswered. In a swift counter retaliation on Friday, Israel targeted Isfahan, home to the Natanz nuclear facility and a major airbase of Shah-era American warplanes. The country had reportedly informed the US before its proposed strike, and Washington had sought moderation.

Iran has downplayed the impact of the Israeli direct attack, claimed it has downed drones, not mentioned the use of missiles and said its nuclear facilities are safe.

The situation in the Middle East is one of perilous escalation. The Israel-palestine conflict has raged over six months in Gaza and the West Bank. The leadership of both Israel and Ham as, despite growing opposition from their own people, have persisted with the conflict. The efforts of the international community for de-escalation and peace have borne no fruit.

The direct strikes bring a new dimension to the conflict, although the two have for long been in confrontation and have waged attacks on each other through militia in foreign lands or covert operations. Fresh attacks could spiral to high-value targets, attacks on nuclear facilities and cyberattacks. There is an increased risk of skirmishes on Israel’s periphery, which will add to regional turmoil and instability.

The deliberate airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus was audacious in terms of international and diplomatic conventions. the Iranian supreme leader called it a direct attack on Iran and declared that Israel would be punished. the attack became a public and emotive issue, not justin iran, but in the arab world, and

While the Iranians promised retaliation, they signalled to the US that American assets could be kept out of harm’s way. Their direct attack tested the capability of Israel’s air defence systems, but its prior announcement gave time to Israel and its allies to take countermeasures. Iran said it had achieved its objectives and the exercise had been concluded. However, the Israeli counterattack could complicate the issue — depending on Iran’s air defence capability to avoid damage. Both sides have crossed the Rubicon.

the Iranians used it as casus belli for retaliation.

While the Iranians promised retaliation, they signaled to the US that American assets could be kept out of harm’s way. Their direct attack tested the capability of Israel’s air defence systems, but its prior announcement gave time to Israel and its allies to take countermeasures. Iran said it had achieved its objectives and the exercise had been concluded.

However, the Israeli counterattack could complicate the issue — depending on Iran’s air defence capability to avoid damage. Both sides have crossed the Rubicon.

If Israel’s objective on the Iran consulate in Damascus was to widen the conflict, it had partial success as it provoked Iran’s direct retaliation.however, something is reassuring: while allies and neighbours supported it in neutralising the Iranian attack, they did not provide support for the subsequent Israeli response and said they would not join such a venture.

The US has said Israel could declare victory as the Iranian attack was effectively repulsed and the damage was minimal. At the same time, most Western countries condemned the Iranian attack and called for de-escalation. At the UN Security Council, where Israel and Iran sparred over the incident, there was little appetite for expanding the conflict.

The Iran-supported militia in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen had launched rocket and drone attacks on Israel, alongside the Iranian barrage. Arab countries have been cautious. They do not want Iran to become the representative of sentiments on the Arab street either.

The long history of animosity between the sides has now erupted into direct attacks. Israel is believed to be nuclear-capable and Iran’s desired programmes for nuclear capability have been in the spotlight. A number of scholars believe that the success of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be uncertain, but the risks would be enormous. They note that Iran may accelerate preparations for realising its nuclear ambitions. However, it has also been argued that the countervailing power that Iran may possess in anticipation of acquiring nuclear capability may exceed what it may gain by actually attaining the status.

The focus on the Israel-palestine conflict has not receded after Iran has become directly embroiled. But the Mossad-hamas channel — brokered by Egypt — to negotiate a ceasefire and release of hostages has seen limited progress. Neither Israel nor Hamas seem keen to push hard enough for an end to their war. The direct Israel-iran attacks could harden the stance on both sides.

Conflict in the region will have ripple effects, not merely in terms of increased oil prices, weakening of supply chains, transportation issues, and financial stress but also geopolitical balance and uncertainties of war. Israel, as a major economic and technological power, stands to lose much in a prolonged war. Many Arab countries have strengthened cooperation with Israel to secure a prosperous and stable future. Iran’s economy has suffered due to sanctions and it can hardly afford a full-fledged war.

For India, the region constitutes its extended neighbourhood. Turmoil affects the security of the diaspora in the Gulf; there is the additional risk of piracy and hostage-taking. The momentum for reforms in global governance led by the Global South would also be impacted. It is imperative that the international community leans upon all parties and urges them to seek solutions through diplomatic negotiations.

Israel's Ambassador to India recently said they lived in a difficult neighbourhood and called on countries to oppose Iran’s behaviour. His Iranian counterpart called on India to take the lead at multilateral fora to stop the war in Gaza.

The two-state solution is the only way ahead. It is not an easy goal, but both sides are familiar with the challenges and opportunities. The cycle of violence must end and the rights and aspirations of the people must be met. India’s civilisational contacts make New Delhi an ideal friend to all in the region.

The writer is a former Ambassador and Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs