The Israeli-Iranian Conflict: A Pathway to Regional Warfare

Professor Dr. Sujit Kumar Datta

27 Oct 2024, 20:54

Photo: Collected

Israel launched a counterattack a few weeks after Iran's October 1 strike. In retaliation for Israel's brutal assaults on Gaza and Lebanon, as well as the assassinations of leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran has launched approximately 200 missiles against Israel.

Follow Rtv Online English on Google news

The most recent confrontation between Iran and Israel is, first and foremost, a war between two nations; second, it may have ramifications for the whole Middle East. In what it saw as a self-defense operation, Israel recently attacked Iran, killing four of its troops. Iran, on the other hand, has said it will continue to resist Israeli attacks on Gaza, Lebanon, and its people.

This situation indicates a long-term regional conflict in the Middle East that could cause deep concern to the international community. It is the first time Israel has accepted responsibility for the attack on Iran, and Defense Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approved the plan at a cabinet meeting. Israeli media reported that Iran had been warned before the attack.

However, despite the warning, Iran did not react. Instead, the attack created more tension. Israel claims its attack was only on military installations. However, this is not just a retaliatory move; Israel's primary goal is to signal to Iran that Israel is ready to counter any Iranian military action. Such an aggressive move would not only escalate the Iran-Israel conflict but could lead to a broader war.

Iran has directly denied the Israeli attack and has made it clear that it is committed to resisting Israeli attacks on territories it supports, including Gaza and Lebanon. Iran's commitment shows that its response encompasses not only Israel but the entire region. The White House spokesman said the United States was not directly involved in the attack. However, US foreign policy has been made abundantly clear in Israel's recent strategy.

The visit of US Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to Israel and Saudi Arabia was a pivotal moment preceding the conflict. The situation in the Middle East has become more heated after the disclosure of secret US-Israeli joint strategy documents on the strategy to attack Iran. The assault on Iran occurred promptly following Blinken's visit, leading to the inference that the incident is linked to his trip to Israel. Despite this declaration, many people think that without the direct or indirect support of the United States, Israel could not have played such a bold role in carrying out the attack.

This ongoing tension between Israel and Iran will not be limited to their bilateral conflict but could spill over into the broader Middle East. The crisis was exacerbated by Israeli military operations against Iran amid anti-Hamas and Hezbollah operations. It may not be limited to the conflict between Iran and Israel but may have broader regional implications.

Especially if significant powers such as China and Russia get involved in the conflict, the possibility of a terrible humanitarian catastrophe is high. In this situation, if countries such as Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia fail to take any action to bring peace to the region, the entire Middle East may become involved in an inevitable war. Meanwhile, the ceasefire brokered by Egypt once again proves that Arab countries are still optimistic about peace in the Middle East.

The assault by Israel on Iran not only intensifies the existing tensions between the two nations but also engenders the potential for a protracted crisis throughout the entire region. Israel's attack on Iran not only exacerbates the Israel between the two countries but also creates the possibility of a long-term crisis in the entire region. Although this attack is limited to military installations, the consequences could be more profound.

The Middle East will be rugged if the conflict spreads and other countries become involved. The situation will become more complicated if powers such as the United States and Russia play a more active role in resolving the conflict. The invasion of Iran, supported by the United States and executed by Israel, has not merely impeded the progress of peace negotiations in the Middle East; it is also steering the region towards an impending and extended conflict.
The writer is the former Chairman, Department of International Relations, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh and Non-resident Fellow, Hong Kong Research Center for Asian Studies (RCAS)

Comments

Most Viewed News Of Free Opinion

Trump vs. Harris: What's at Stake for Bangladesh?

Many analysts believe that the outcome of the U.S. election, whether it’s Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, could significantly impact Bangladesh. This discussion has intensified, particularly after a tweet from Republican candidate Donald Trump. In the past, U.S. politicians, especially Democrats, have shown strong ties with Dr. Muhammad Yunus, the Chief Advisor of the Bangladesh government. A Democratic administration typically emphasizes democratic processes and human rights worldwide. If Kamala Harris or the Democrats come to power, experts anticipate smoother business and cooperation opportunities for Bangladesh. According to Michael Kugelman, a South Asia expert and author at the Wilson Center, if Kamala Harris wins, the current U.S.-Bangladesh relationship may continue as it is. However, he cautions that a Trump presidency could change this dynamic. Kugelman notes that Bangladesh is one of the South Asian countries where the U.S. election outcome could have a significant impact on bilateral relations. Former Bangladeshi Ambassador to the U.S., M. Humayun Kabir, expressed concern that a Trump victory could reduce U.S. humanitarian aid globally, which could have consequences for Bangladesh, particularly on issues like the Rohingya crisis, as a large portion of U.N. aid for the Rohingyas in Bangladesh comes from the U.S. Historically, Donald Trump has not been seen as a conventional U.S. president. His approach to foreign policy often creates uncertainty. Usually, a change in U.S. presidency doesn’t bring drastic shifts in foreign policy, thanks to strong institutional structures, notes Dr. Mehnaz Momen, a professor at Texas A&M University. However, Trump has sometimes suggested altering institutional structures, which could lead to a significant shift, though Momen remains skeptical about how much this would impact foreign policy. Recently, a Trump tweet regarding minority oppression has sparked discussion in Bangladesh, but analysts view it more as a strategy to appeal to Hindu voters in the U.S. than a signal of future policy. Chief Advisor’s Press Secretary Shafiqul Alam mentioned that certain lobby groups might have influenced this statement, hinting that this might refer to Awami League or India. In previous Bangladeshi elections, U.S. support initially leaned toward a firm stance on election credibility, but later, India’s backing of the Bangladeshi government became a critical factor. Former ambassador Kabir notes that India might play a role in Bangladesh’s bilateral relations if Trump wins, particularly given Trump’s strong ties with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This could create concerns for Bangladesh if its relationship with India remains strained, as U.S. foreign policy often views Bangladesh through an Indian lens. If Kamala Harris wins, due to her favorable ties with Dr. Yunus, there could be greater friction between U.S. and Indian perspectives on Bangladesh, Kugelman suggests. Bangladesh’s potential role as a rising market has also attracted U.S. interest in areas like major power equipment, Boeing aircraft, and gas or LNG supply. Many Bangladeshis live, study, and work in the U.S., highlighting a valuable people-to-people relationship. Analysts believe that Bangladesh’s future relations with the U.S. will be influenced by various factors, including the U.S.’s evolving geopolitical interests in South Asia and its connection with Dr. Yunus. Ultimately, a range of factors will shape the future of U.S.-Bangladesh relations. (Source: BBC)

COP29: Will India Finally Address Climate Migration?

India is witnessing a myriad of issues caused by extreme weather events such as sweltering heat, droughts and massive flooding. Among them, climate-induced migration holds particular significance for the South Asian nation, where a surprising number of people are already facing the threat of displacement with the figures expected to rise exponentially. In 2020, an estimated 14 million people in India were forced to migrate as a consequence of extreme weather events, according to figures from the country's Internal Displacement Monitoring Center (IDMC). IDMC's 2022 report states that India is seeing the third highest number of internal displacements due to disasters, after China and the Philippines. The number of climate-related migrants in India is projected to reach 45 million by 2050, according to Climate Action Network South Asia. Despite the severe risks of climate migration, India still lacks a policy framework. "Many human mobilities are taking place that are, in part, due to climate change but are not identified as climate-linked," explained Mathew A. Varghese, professor at the Center for Urban Studies at Mahatma Gandhi University in the state of Kerala. Climate migration policy in India Despite being the seventh most climate-vulnerable country in the world, facing the mammoth challenge of climate migration, India does not have concrete policies in place to address the issue. In 2008, India launched the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), which laid down a broad framework to address what India could do to tackle climate change in different sectors. However, "there's a significant policy vacuum in terms of how the framework aims to manage displacement," Saransh Bajpai, associate program director for climate, economics and finance at India's World Resources Institute, told DW. "The National Disaster Management Authority, while it acknowledges displacement and mobility, fails to establish concrete financial mechanisms for addressing this [climate migration] challenge. So, there's definitely a policy vacuum." In 2022, for the first time, Pradyut Bordoloi, a member of Parliament from the climate vulnerable eastern state of Assam, introduced the Climate Migrants (Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill as a private member's bill. Bordoloi told DW the bill was motivated by the suffering of people in the Brahmaputra River islands who, after losing their homes and livelihoods each rainy season, are forced to relocate. He said that they become vulnerable to discrimination and persecution. While introducing the bill, Bordoloi had said that the proposed legislation seeks to "establish an appropriate policy framework for the protection and rehabilitation of internally displaced climate migrants and for all matters connected therewith." The bill also sought to establish a climate migration fund. However it was not passed. "Local governments or state governments could play a partisan role which is why there should be a federal authority looking after the needs of climate migrants," Bordoloi told DW, adding that, "this authority should have budgetary allocation from the government of India." COP29: An opportunity for India? India lacks a policy on climate migration despite being a signatory to the UN's Sendai Framework, which recognizes disaster displacement as a significant issue and major driver of disaster risk. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) also recognizes the subject of migration, displacement, and planned relocation, as a crucial climate risk management issue. COP28, last year's UN climate conference in Dubai, saw the first-ever global stocktake where human mobility was recognized as a major impact of climate change affecting people and communities. The Loss and Damage Fund, operationalized for the first time during the talks, also included displacement and displaced persons in its scope. India aims to take the lead in building a case for better climate finance opportunities for developing countries at next week's UN climate summit, COP29, which will take place in Azerbaijan's capital city, Baku. Despite its participation and active role in global forums discussing climate change, India fails to account for internal climate migration which has an enormous economic impact. "India places itself very firmly in the global negotiation processes and has been very vocal as far as adaptation and loss and damage is concerned," said Bajpa, who noted that India could benefit from philanthropic financing for climate change. "India should provide something innovative to ... engage with these philanthropies and pull in a no-strings-attached grant contribution," he said, adding that, "then the migration policy should enable creating a trusted financial mechanism in India." (From Deutsche Welle)

Iran and Saudi Arabia Pursue Cautious Rapprochement

Iran and Saudi Arabia are intent on continuing their cautious course of rapprochement. After a Saudi-Iranian deal brokered by China in 2023, the erstwhile rivals want to deepen their relationship. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's visit to the Saudi capital Riyadh at the beginning of October indicates that relations are developing. He also met Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. Tensions go back almost half a century Rapprochement is a new approach for the two countries, whose relations have been considered particularly difficult since the Iranian revolution in 1979. The tensions originated in a fundamentally different understanding of the political role of religion. After 1979, Iran's approach to Islam was from the perspective of social revolution. For a long time, it positioned itself in the region as the leader of Shiite Muslims with rebellious tendencies. For its part, the Saudi royal family, which is Sunni, relies primarily on the role of religion to maintain its power. It bases its claim to leadership in the region on Islam and its role as the custodian of the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. The different positions became particularly apparent during the Arab Spring protests that began in 2010 and spread around the region. Saudi Arabia was concerned that Iran would shape and instrumentalize the protest movements. Yemen remains a source of conflict Despite all the rhetoric about rapprochement, the two countries remain indirectly opposed to each other in Yemen, where the radical Shiite Houthi militia attempted to overthrow the government of Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi and took control of large parts of the country. While Iran supported the Houthis, Saudi Arabia led a coalition of predominantly Sunni states, which was also supported by the West, predominantly the US, to fight them. One of the coalition's motives was to push back against Iranian influence. Rapprochement makes sense from Saudi perspective Nonetheless, Sebastian Sons from CARPO, a Bonn-based think tank, believes that the current rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia has several advantages from the latter's perspective. He told DW that after Iran attacked Saudi oil facilities in 2019, Riyadh realized that it could not completely rely on the US and would have to resolve issues with its Iranian neighbor. He added that in Riyadh, regional stability was considered a prerequisite for a successful economy, based on the one-sided dependence on oil. "Riyadh also wants to put a definitive end to the conflict in Yemen, and in particular to the shelling of Saudi territory by the Houthis," Sons said. "In this respect, it is hoping that Iran can influence the militia." However, Hamidreza Azizi from the Berlin-based German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), said it remained to be seen what influence Iran has on the Houthis. He told DW that it was unlikely that Iran could dictate the Houthis' every move. But he said that both Iran and the Houthis were looking out for each other's interests, and that could contribute to an ongoing cease-fire in Yemen. Iran is pursuing its own interests Azizi added that Iran was pursuing its concrete interests with its rapprochement with Saudi Arabia. "Years of sanctions and economic mismanagement, corruption," had hit Iran hard, he said. "The regime has been concerned about increasing economic challenges leading to probably more severe waves of protest," adding that Iranians doubted the regime's ability to govern effectively. He said that because Iran had not been able to reach an agreement with the West on the nuclear deal and "lift the economic sanctions," it was "looking for other ways to compensate, for example trying to integrate into multilateral organizations like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, but also to improve relations with neighbors like Saudi Arabia." Iran is also concerned about its security interests, Azizi explained. Even before the rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which was brokered by China, "there were growing signs indicating that a normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel might be imminent. […] so Iran was really afraid of the potential of an anti-Iran coalition between Arab states and Israel, and the best way that they thought could help and prevent the formation of such coalition was to reach out to Arab states themselves." He described this as "detente as deterrence." At the moment, Saudi Arabia's normalization efforts with Israel before October 7, 2023, are no longer relevant, Azizi said, pointing out that Riyadh had spoken out in favor of a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians, which is currently not an option for Israel. But he insisted that Saudi Arabia had no intention of turning against Israel or giving the impression that it is turning away from the West by moving closer to Iran. Saudi Arabia wants strategic autonomy, he said. Saudi Arabia wants to be a mediator For Sons, Saudi Arabia wants to be perceived as building bridges as a mediator with all players. "Qatar performs a similar function," he explained. "Saudi Arabia has traditionally been more reserved, but now seems to be positioning itself as a player that keeps the channels of communication with Tehran open." "Messages from the Americans to the Iranians have already been communicated via the Saudis. This will be an important part of Saudi regional policy and diplomacy in the future," Sons said. Azizi has a similar view. He thinks that improved Iranian-Saudi relations could contribute to the region's long-term stability and that Tehran has understood that rapprochement is in the interests of all parties. Deutsche Welle

The Israeli-Iranian Conflict: A Pathway to Regional Warfare

BRICS Model: An Alternative to Western Hegemony

Trump vs. Harris: What's at Stake for Bangladesh?

COP29: Will India Finally Address Climate Migration?

Iran and Saudi Arabia Pursue Cautious Rapprochement

Saudi Offers Path to Legalization for Runaway Workers

FIFA Report Praises Saudi Arabia 2034 World Cup Bid

Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Move into Cricket

Blinken Calls for End to Gaza War