From shadow war to open conflict: Iran and Israel’s dangerous escalation

The Unraveling of Iran’s “Choke Hold” Strategy

For decades, Iran pursued a patient and multifaceted approach to confronting Israel, often referred to as the “Choke Hold” strategy. This approach involved:

• Supporting proxy forces like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza

• Pursuing nuclear capabilities as both a deterrent and diplomatic leverage

• Attempting to isolate Israel economically and diplomatically

This strategy allowed Iran to maintain plausible deniability while increasing pressure on its adversary. By operating through proxies, Iran could inflict damage on Israel without risking direct retaliation.

Technological Advancements and Shifting Alliances Alter the Battlefield

Several factors have contributed to the breakdown of the proxy war paradigm:

1. Israel’s advanced missile defense systems, particularly the Iron Dome, have significantly reduced the effectiveness of rocket attacks from Gaza and Lebanon.

2. Israeli operations against Iranian assets in Syria and Lebanon have demonstrated Israel’s growing capabilities and willingness to take the fight closer to Iranian soil.

3. The Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states, have altered regional dynamics and further isolated Iran.

4. Ongoing sanctions and the breakdown of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) have removed diplomatic restraints and pushed Iran toward more aggressive postures.

October 7 Attack: A Watershed Moment in the Conflict

The Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, marked a horrific escalation and a turning point. It was the largest assault on Israeli soil since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, resulting in over 1,200 Israeli deaths, thousands of injuries, and hundreds taken hostage.

While Hamas claimed full responsibility, evidence quickly emerged of significant Iranian involvement in planning, training, and supplying weapons for the attack. This event laid bare the extent of Iran’s proxy capabilities, revealing Tehran’s hand earlier than it may have intended.

Escalation Spiral: From Cyber Attacks to Direct Missile Strikes

In the months following the October 7 attack, the conflict has rapidly escalated beyond proxy warfare, marked by several significant events:

• December 2023: The killing of senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Razi Mousavi in a precision strike in Damascus, attributed to Israel

• January 2024: The assassination of Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, forcing a leadership change that brought the organization under more direct Iranian control

• February 2024: An explosion at an IRGC military facility in Isfahan, Iran, believed to be caused by Israeli operations

Cyber Warfare Escalation

• Iranian hackers targeted Israeli water treatment facilities and financial systems.

• Israel reportedly disrupted Iran’s air defense networks and port operations.

• Both sides engaged in attacks on critical infrastructure including power grids and military communications.

Naval Confrontations

• Increased attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea by Iranian-backed Houthi forces

• Several skirmishes between Iranian and Israeli naval forces in the Persian Gulf

• Multiple incidents involving commercial vessels linked to both countries

The situation reached a tipping point in April 2024, when Iran launched an unprecedented direct missile and drone attack on Israeli territory. Over 200 projectiles were fired at targets across Israel, marking a clear shift from proxy warfare to direct military action.

Global Implications: Oil Markets, Economy, and Nuclear Proliferation at Risk

A full-scale war between Iran and Israel would have far-reaching consequences:

1. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz could lead to dramatic spikes in global energy prices.

2. The resulting energy crisis and regional instability could trigger a global recession.

3. Large-scale displacement could create a significant refugee crisis, straining resources beyond the Middle East.

4. The conflict could accelerate nuclear proliferation in the region.

5. There is a real risk of drawing in global powers like the United States, Russia, and China.

The Illusion of Diplomacy: Why Iran’s War Against Israel Cannot Be Negotiated Away

The international community’s repeated failures to resolve this conflict stem not only from Iran’s existential threats to Israel but also from outdated paradigms in approaching state-sponsored terrorism and conflict resolution.

The conventional distinction between a state and a terrorist organization becomes blurred when dealing with a country like Iran, which operates as what some would term a “terror state” – actively facilitating and supporting terrorist activities across the region. 

Imagine if, in the aftermath of 9/11, the world had called for the United States to find a “middle ground” with Al-Qaeda. Such a proposition would have been rightfully dismissed as absurd and morally bankrupt. Yet, this is precisely the position Israel often finds itself in today, facing pressure to negotiate with entities that openly seek its destruction.

When it comes to Israel’s conflict with Iran and its proxies, there seems to be a troubling shift in the world’s perspective. The international community often approaches this situation as if both sides hold equally valid positions that can be reconciled through traditional diplomacy. This stance ignores the reality of Iran’s repeated calls for Israel’s destruction and its active support of terrorist organizations dedicated to this goal.

The world stands at a critical juncture in the Iran-Israel conflict. The international community’s insistence on treating this as a conventional dispute that can be resolved through traditional diplomacy reflects a dangerous misunderstanding of its fundamental nature. When one nation explicitly calls for another’s destruction while actively supporting terrorist operations, the usual diplomatic playbook becomes not just ineffective, but potentially dangerous. As Iran and Israel move closer to open conflict, the world must confront an uncomfortable truth: sometimes, the greatest obstacle to peace is not the absence of dialogue, but the presence of an uncompromising existential threat that no amount of diplomatic finesse can resolve.