I think this is a very,
very complex, complicated conflict and which we have to segmentize
and take it in separate parts to understand it fully.
But I'll try and simplify it.
We need not go behind beyond
1979. It is from 1979 that Iran
chose to actually become a virtual enemy and an adversary
of Israel.
Till that time the relationship was fairly good.
It is at that time and the leadership of Iran,
the the clerical leadership, the clergy at the time,
decided that they had to take the lead
in terms of extolling the virtues and promoting Shia Islam
against Sunni Islam,
which is essentially the leadership of which is in the
hands of Saudi Arabia.
And the clergy felt that one of the best ways
of showing the
support of the Islamic world
to in this cause would be by supporting the Palestinian
issue
which they felt the Arabs had not sufficiently supported the
Arabs all these years.
So it starts from there,
a competitive spirit between Iran and Saudi Arabia,
which has existed here ideologically,
politically and from a very,
very deep military angle. Now there is no common border
between Iran and Israel,
so there's no question of a conventional military conflict in
which you have
ground forces making a a
foray into enemy territory and things like that.
It is purely by three methods.
The 1st of this is by proxies and proxies means
fighting through a second country,
a third country. It is how Lebanon and Syria got
involved because both of them have got a common frontier
with Israel,
but also have a common frontier with Iran.
Lebanon not so much with Iran,
but Syria with Iran, which affords the
the placement of military hardware
personnel that is human resources.
Proxies, Proxies, support in a big way through this direction.
Iran has chosen proxy warfare as a doctrine to fight
Israel. It's also have and actually even even the much
of the Arab world they've done this in with the
Houthis in Yemen,
they've done it with Hezbollah in Lebanon,
and they've chosen to do it through Hamas in Raza.
Although Hamas is not a Shia organization as such,
it is more for the purpose of supporting the Arabs.
So with this aspect in mind,
whenever the major threats emanate to Israel or Israel is
in a military confrontation as it is at with the
Hamas at the moment,
it always makes sure that it targets
various facilities, resources which are placed in the territories of
Lebanon and Syria
to make sure that the Iranian capability does not sort
of
stabilize in these areas. If these P areas do not
become a part of the military system of Iran,
that is the purpose behind it.
The IRGC as you are aware,
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is five fights,
is the one which conducts the proxy warfare and is
a very important entity in doing this in Lebanese and
in Syrian territory.
In Lebanon it is primarily Hezbollah,
yes, absolutely. You see. So he may be considered as
one of the proxy commanders virtually because he's the one
who controlled much of the proxies which are operating from
Syrian territory. And for for Israel this was a major
achievement.
Pinpoint targeting, precision guidance of the missile,
order of the of the aircraft to the spot where
the presence of the IRGC leadership was there,
and achievement of a bang on kill at that particular
time.
No, Iran is obviously not expected to sit back
and accept this. This happened also,
if you remember, in the year 2000 or virtually in
19, 2019 and 2020, early part of
2020 when Brigadier General Soleimani
was killed by a drone strike by the United States.
And thereafter, on 8th of January,
Iran struck back with 12 missiles
against an US air base in western Iraq.
Although that was a strike,
but considered more symbolic with no casualties at all.
It was just shown that as if Iran,
to keep its, you know,
respect, had carried out this particular attack and it seemed
almost an attack by agreement between the two nations.
Now that is the nature by which people are once
again reading
this attack of 300 missiles and drones,
which has taken place only day before yesterday,
once again on Israeli territory.
Once the Iranians decided that they will strike,
it was a question of how
serious would the strike be?
Would it be designed to cause mass casualties in Israel
or only be symbolic in nature?
Now that is something which is still being determined because
it seems that
there was a design, A strategy to ensure the minimization
of casualties and damage.
And it was done with a
initial foray by drones, which are very slow moving drones,
so that the warnings would be apparently
given to the Israelis and the others.
Those drones could be taken out from the air.
Thereafter, the Rockets and the missiles would be fired.
The Israelis would be alert and would be able to
intercept most of them.
It seems as if it was designed to make sure
that the action was carried out,
but the effect would be minimal.
Very, very good question indeed.
And that's what most of the world is looking at
at the moment.
Is it necessary for Israel to respond?
Well, the conjecture is that if Israel does not respond,
it may show as if it has been deterred by
the Iranian action.
That is 1 aspect of it.
The 2nd is Netanyahu, where there's a
propensity to be offensive, to take the offensive to the
enemy,
etc. If he does not do anything at this time
and in virtue of the fact.
Also that maybe 130 or
140 hostages still existent with the Hamas
Netanyahu's leadership capabilities, its ability to project himself,
even if the election election takes place in Israel today
would be highly questionable.
So from that angle, Netanyahu may be tempted to carry
out this action.
But from a military standpoint,
it is never makes good sense to fight on two
different fronts.
You see here there's a serious war going on with
the Hamas where Israel for the better part of six
months has not been able to achieve its military objectives,
which in this particular case is also the release of
the hostages.
Now if you have not been able to do that
and you have had only
peripheral engagements on the northern borders with the Hezbollah,
you've carried out some offensive actions in Syria,
etcetera. That is all. Containment is a holding action which
is going on
if you now respond. If Israel now responds in a
more serious way against Iran,
it would probably invite a higher,
deeper escalation from the Iranian angle.
Also, would Israel want to actually be confronting 2 fronts,
one in Raza, one in
with the Hezbollah and the Iranians and the Syrians in
the northern front?
That is a military decision which has to be taken
with care by Israel.
At this particular moment, much of the world is advising
Netanyahu not to respond.
They're saying it's done, it's been done.
Dusted. You carried out the action on the 1st of
April.
Iran has carried out the action on the 14th of
April.
It switched. Now carry on.
Let's look at his potential ceasefire in in in Gaza,
because that is the issue on which much of the
world is actually stalled at the moment.
They want that ceasefire to take place so that the
humanitarian aid can go in,
the potential of the release of the hostages can take
place.
All these important aspects and Qazaab are being sidetracked because
of what is happening in the northern borders.
One can't really say that with any degree of confidence
at the moment but what happened on the 1st of
April
in terms of the strike on the Damascus
a facility whether with the Iranian facility was
obviously Iran could not shut back.
You see as I said stated in my early part
of the intervention also
Iran has to be seen,
is virtually in competition with Saudi Arabia and much of
the
of the of the Sunni world to look to consider
itself as the leader of the Islamic world.
If it if this projection and perception is created that
their
facility their their consulate could be targeted by the Israelis
without an adequate response
by Iran, it would perhaps send a message at Iran
is second best is not good enough to take leadership
of the Islamic world.
So what they've done actually is a symbolic action to
try and overcome that challenge which they are facing at
the moment.
You see, for very long the Islamic world has been
divided on this issue.
It's not just a a Shia world versus the Sunni
world.
Within the Sunni world itself there's a deep division.
For example, the you we are all aware of the
Abrahamic Accords which took place
which were essentially designed to bring about the Arab world
closer to the Israelis and to the Western world,
the Christian world, bringing the three faiths together
and isolating Iran, isolating Iran well beyond.
Now those Abrahamic Accords came under
huge stress by the actions that Israel carried out on
the 7th of October in response to what I have
what the Hamas had done in terms of the attack
on southern Gaza or through southern Gaza.
So its because of that that this division continues to
exist.
Iran from 1 angle, Shia second angle,
Persian ethnically also different. Geopolitically.
Geo strategically on the other side of the Persian Gulf
has always remained a separate entity.
The Shia Crescent, as you're aware,
the southern Iraq area now in fact almost the whole
Iraqi territory,
Iran, Iraq, much of Azerbaijan to an extent and some
portions of Bahrain.
All this is the emerge with what was known as
the emerging Shia Crescent.
This was an essential part of the Shia Sunni ideological
conflict which has taken place all these years,
translated into a geopolitical effect in terms of the support
to Israel or the adversarial relations with with the Israel.