Ring of fire: Isn’t it time to consider a direct response against Iran? - opinion

On September 25, 2021, Gen. Gholamali Rashid, commander of the Khatam Al-Anbiya Central Headquarters in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), quoted remarks made by the Quds Corps commander Qasem Soleimani:  “I have assembled for you six armies outside Iranian territory, and I have created a corridor 1,500 km. long and 1,000 km. wide all the way to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea... One army is in Lebanon. It is called Hezbollah. Another army is in Palestine and it is called Hamas and Islamic Jihad (IJ). One army is in Syria. Another army is in Iraq and is called the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), and another army is in Yemen and is called Ansar Allah (i.e., the Houthis). 

“All of these have created deterrence in the service of our dear Iran. The anger of the trespassing Americans and of the Zionist regime with regard to Iran’s regional power stems from their realization that the Islamic Republic of Iran possesses two elements of power: The first is a powerful armed force that is ready for battle, and prepared to defend from within Iran’s territory against any foreign invader, and the second is a regional force outside of Iran’s territory.” 

That is the Iranian security concept in a nutshell.

The Gaza war is proof of the Iranian strategy. The war broke out due to two major Iranian interests. The first was a normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia that would have strengthened US hegemony in the region. This agreement is not on the agenda as long as the war continues and it is currently unclear whether it will indeed come into effect in the near future. This agreement would have led to the isolation of Iran in the Persian Gulf, and in the Iranian view would have been considered an act of betrayal of the Muslim nation.

The second is Iran’s desire to promote the development of its nuclear weapons. Iran was strategically prepared for a military response from Israel. Therefore, Iran sought – and succeeded in creating – a balance of deterrence between itself and Israel and the US through the use of proxy organizations mentioned above: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and more. This is how the Islamic Republic operates proxy organizations not directly subject to the rules of international humanitarian law or other international treaties – without Iran directly paying the price of war and even remaining a member of various United Nations conferences dealing with human rights.

Since October 7, 2023, Israel has been engaged in a multi-arena war against the Iranian proxy organizations as well as a direct attack from Iran itself by various aircraft (such as UAVs, missiles, and drones).

The Israeli approach was to focus on the proxy organizations directly and, except in exceptional cases, to avoid a direct attack on Iran. Israel’s strategy aimed to remove and militarily destroy the Hamas and Islamic Jihad armies and stop Gaza from continuing to be part of the Iranian ring of fire.

Time to make a decision on Iran

ISRAEL SUCCEEDED in achieving its strategic goal, after nine months of fighting and paying a heavy price. Hamas is close to breaking point. The chain of command of the organization has been largely eliminated. Those who are still alive are hiding. As expressed by quite a few Palestinians, including Gaza residents and senior officials in the Palestinian Authority (PA), Hamas harmed the Palestinian interest of stability and prosperity in return for a rigid ideological implementation of jihad using ISIS methods, at any cost, against the Jews and Israel.

Jihad’s real goal is to strengthen the influence of Iran and its Shi’ite hegemony in the region. It is not by chance that the starting point of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar is that this war will be remembered as the “Battle of Karbala” (the name of a central 680 CE Shi’a battle). This is more than a hint at the process of Shi’ization that Hamas has undergone in recent years.

Israel is now at a crossroads. Will it continue to crush and destroy the military capabilities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, even at the possible heavy price of a death sentence for the hostages? 

Or will it give in to the demands of the Hamas organization and agree to a ceasefire, while releasing thousands of Palestinian detainees with a proven record of carrying out terrorist attacks and allowing Hamas to renew its power in Gaza? 

It should be remembered that while Israel is indeed exerting military pressure on Hamas, Iran is also exerting military pressure on Israel, utilizing a strategy of multi-arena attacks from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

Indeed, the price that Israel has paid and continues to pay is heavy. In the regional war that Iran launched against Israel on October 7 through its proxies, Israel has so far lost over 1,500 people and has many evacuees in the North and South. However, Israel must win this war to ensure its long-term survival in the Middle East.

Last Friday, an Iranian Samad 3 drone hit Tel Aviv and killed one citizen. 

This time again, Israel preferred to attack the messenger rather than the sender. The damage to the infrastructure of failed states, such as Yemen and Lebanon, only exacerbates the humanitarian crisis within them. 

Isn’t it time to consider a direct response against Iran?

The writer is a senior researcher at the BESA Center and a research fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Lisbon. During his military service, he served in various roles in the West Bank. He has also taught in the Bar-Ilan University Department of Middle Eastern Studies and the Department of Political Science.