The Iranian missile attack against Israel in response to bombing of the embassy of Iran in Damascus has shaken the delicate balance of power in the Middle East, opening the door to a potential conflict between the two regional powers. Although the missiles caused practically no direct damage (only one injured, a 10-year-old boy to whom we wish him a speedy recovery), the incident marks a dangerous precedent in relations between Tehran and Jerusalem, two states separated by 1000 kilometers ( 620 miles) away and decades of hostility.
Now, as tensions rise and the options on the table (unfortunately) progressively narrow, the world holds its breath: what would happen if this already compromised balance were to break down completely?
A remote war with limited weapons
Geography is the first factor that conditions the military options of Iran and Israel. With a distance, as mentioned, of 1000 round kilometers between them, both countries find themselves having to deal with significant operational limits. I try to get down to the practical level thanks to the ideas received from some practical sources on the topic (I accept additions, if necessary).
Therefore: the F-16 e F-35 Israelis, even with additional fuel tanks, would have a range of around 1200-1600 kilometers (800-1000 miles). This means that only a small part of Tel Aviv's air force could reach the heart of Iran, and only with a complex in-flight refueling system. On the other hand, Iranian MiGs and F-14s also suffer from similar limitations.
Iran-Israel: unconventional options and regional proxies
In the face of these obvious operational constraints, this sounds important the formal "refusal" of the USA to support a new Israeli attack. In the game of roles, Israel knows it has to answer to Iran again for its doctrine based on deterrence, and the declarations of the last few hours go in this direction. For this reason it could resort to unconventional tools to strike Tehran. Assuming that Jerusalem does not desist, “targeted” Mossad operations or large-scale cyberattacks are options that could avoid an uncontrolled escalation.
The real game, however, could be played on the terrain of the regional militias. Beyond the first direct attack on Israel (with strong political and symbolic value), Iran has long built a network of proxies, actors who act "on behalf of third parties" in its place. From militias in Yemen, Syria and Iraq to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Groups that in some way represent Tehran's long arm, and act by inflicting damage and suffering losses (in the last 6 months, the clashes between Israel and Hezbollah have caused an incalculable number of civilian displacements and victims among the ranks of the Lebanese group).
Jerusalem's strategic dilemma, between the support and the "tongs" of the allies
Israel (which I find in strong debt of common sense, given the abnormal, abominable reaction to the vile attacks of October 7) is therefore faced with a strategic dilemma: how to respond to the Iranian attack without triggering an uncontrollable escalation?
Direct retaliation would risk setting off a chain reaction, dragging the region, perhaps the planet, into a devastating conflict. At the same time, Tel Aviv's political leadership, increasingly "balkanized" by hawks, feels pressure to show its citizens that it will not stand by while the country is attacked. Another possible way out could be to intensify actions against pro-Iranian militias, sending a message of firmness without directly targeting Tehran.
This strategy is not without risk either. In this delicate balance, even a single border incident or misunderstanding could precipitate the situation. Not to mention the unpredictable role of external actors, from the United States (despite the "prudence" exhibited) to Russia itself, each with their own interests and their own levers of influence in the region.
Iran-Israel a new chapter in the conflict
I wrote it on other occasions, also much earlier of the outbreak of this last part of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, always authorizing the spells. A century from now, students might remember the last 5 years as stages leading up to a world conflict.
And the Iranian missile attack, even with all the precautions adopted (warning and at least "irritual" methods) and without direct damage, could therefore mark the beginning of a new chapter in the hostilities between Iran and Israel. A low intensity clash, made up of long-distance skirmishes, targeted reprisals and proxy wars, but no less dangerous for this. Because in such a volatile context, a spark is enough to start the fire.
The international community has a duty to exert all its influence to promote de-escalation. It's time to work for peace, before it's too late. Because in war there are never winners, only victims and devastation. And that's a price no one can afford to make us pay.
