10/14 – International News Story & Updates

Israel has intensified its military presence in southern Lebanon by deploying a fourth division, following a series of heavy airstrikes in the region. The recent addition of the 146th reservist division, alongside another active division, has increased the total number of Israeli troops in the area to approximately 15,000.

This move is part of Operation Northern Arrows, initially described by Israel as a set of “limited, localized, and targeted raids” aimed at dismantling Hezbollah’s infrastructure along the contested blue line border.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had killed Hashem Safieddine, who was expected to succeed Nasrallah.

In response to the continued Israeli strikes on Lebanon and Gaza, Hezbollah’s Operations Room released a firm statement, pledging to maintain its resistance against Israeli occupation until the conflict in Gaza concludes. The statement underscored the group’s state of readiness and improved missile capabilities, warning that any further Israeli aggression would lead to a stronger retaliation.

Hezbollah emphasized that its military operations are now directed by a more robust command-and-control structure, making the group “stronger and more resilient” than before. The group also warned that ongoing Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians could lead to missile strikes on major cities like Haifa and border towns such as Kiryat Shmona and Metulla. The statement further highlighted the fierce battles ongoing in southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah fighters are successfully resisting Israeli advances into border villages, demonstrating their ability to strike deep into Israeli territory beyond missiles and drones.

The deployment of four divisions, combined with evacuation orders for Lebanese villages within 20 miles of the blue line and heavy bombings in southern and eastern Lebanon, suggests that Israel may be gearing up for a larger offensive against Hezbollah.

Despite the escalation in airstrikes, Hezbollah’s acting secretary-general, Naim Qassem, gave a defiant speech, asserting that the group’s military strength remains intact. He noted that Hezbollah continues to launch daily rocket and drone attacks against Israeli settlements, even in the face of significant leadership losses.

Israeli leaders believe that the 181 ballistic missiles launched by Iran on October 1st leave them with little choice but to retaliate. The form this retaliation takes could have far-reaching consequences for the Middle East and beyond.

There are four main targets being considered. Prime Minister Netanyahu has long advocated for bombing the sites where Iran enriched uranium and conducts research for its nuclear program. However, these sites are spread out across the country and heavily fortified underground, making it difficult to cause significant damage. Successfully targeting them would require deploying numerous bunker-busting missiles from aircraft operating over 1,200km (750 miles) away. Israel’s air force, though powerful, may struggle to delay Iran’s nuclear progress by more than a few months. [The Economist] 

A more vulnerable target would be Iran’s key ports, particularly oil facilities, which are essential for its foreign currency revenue. Israeli strategists believe destroying these ports would significantly harm Iran’s already weakened economy, potentially sparking further internal unrest, with some even hoping this could lead to regime change.

A third option is to directly target Iran’s leadership, just as Israel has previously done with leaders of Iran’s allies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. This, however, would be challenging, as Iran’s senior figures would likely retreat to secure locations if a strike seemed imminent, and the impact of such an attack remains unpredictable. The succession of Iran’s aging supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, is already a topic of considerable debate in the country.

The most straightforward response would be a direct attack on Iran’s missile bases. This option could reduce the chances of further Iranian missile strikes. However, Netanyahu sees an opportunity to reshape the region’s political landscape, and some of his generals agree, believing Israel’s ability to withstand two major Iranian missile attacks with minimal casualties or damage proves it can handle whatever Iran might throw at it.

Those advocating for strikes on Iran’s nuclear program and economic targets argue that Israel has a rare strategic advantage, having recently neutralized much of Hezbollah’s leadership and missile arsenal, a deterrent provided by Iran to counter any attack on its nuclear infrastructure.

Despite the clear provocation, Israel has not yet retaliated two weeks after the missile attacks. Several generals advise caution, warning that Israel should not embark on such a significant operation without coordination with its key ally, the United States. However, President Joe Biden has publicly opposed an Israeli attack on Iran’s oil infrastructure, concerned that it could cause a spike in global energy prices just before American elections. He has also expressed reluctance about Israel striking Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Although the U.S. has provided Israel with nearly $18 billion in support this past year, and American forces played a key role in intercepting Iranian missiles, Israel has not yet shared its plans with Washington. Netanyahu even blocked a proposed visit by Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, to the U.S. to discuss potential options.

However, the United States announced on Sunday that it will deploy U.S. troops to Israel along with an advanced U.S. anti-missile system, in a rare move aimed at strengthening Israel’s air defenses after recent missile strikes by Iran. President Joe Biden stated that the deployment is intended “to defend Israel,” as the country considers retaliating against Iran, following Tehran’s launch of more than 180 missiles at Israel on October 1. [Reuters]

The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, a crucial element of the U.S. military’s layered air defense, will enhance Israel’s already strong anti-missile defenses.

The United States has been quietly urging Israel to carefully manage its response to avoid sparking a wider conflict in the Middle East, according to officials. President Joe Biden has publicly expressed his opposition to an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and raised concerns about targeting Iran’s energy infrastructure.

Pentagon spokesperson Major General Patrick Ryder characterized the deployment as part of “broader adjustments the U.S. military has made in recent months” to support Israel and protect U.S. personnel from attacks by Iran and its allied groups. However, a U.S. military presence in Israel outside of joint exercises is rare, given Israel’s advanced military capabilities. In recent months, U.S. forces have assisted Israel’s defense through warships and fighter jets stationed in the Middle East during Iranian missile attacks.

Some Israeli defense officials worry that provoking a full-scale war with Iran, while Israel is still engaged with Hamas in Gaza and has launched a ground offensive against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, could dangerously stretch its resources. Certain generals caution against risking the progress already made.

However, since the October 7th, 2023 disaster, the standing of Israel’s military and intelligence leaders in opposing Netanyahu has weakened. Like the prime minister, they seem willing to gamble on a broader conflict, hoping to transform their legacy from overseeing one of Israel’s greatest crises to achieving victory in a regional war.

Opinion: 

Last week, Iran launched its largest attack ever on Israel, firing around 180 ballistic missiles at its regional adversary. Though most of these were intercepted by Israel’s defense systems, the question now is how Israel will respond. Netanyahu has already declared that Iran will pay for the attack, and Israel is carefully calculating its next move. It’s clear that Iran intended these strikes as a deterrent against Israel’s growing escalation, but it appears to have failed in achieving this goal. Israel is reportedly weighing whether to target critical infrastructure like Iran’s oil facilities or even strike its nuclear sites, a move that would undoubtedly raise the risk of full-scale war.

Iran’s ruling regime, led by the Ayatollahs, finds itself in a more precarious position than many realize. Iran’s proxies are being overwhelmed by Israeli forces, and Netanyahu seems increasingly willing to escalate, despite international calls for restraint. The Iranian government now faces a dilemma: it must avoid full-scale war with Israel while trying to project strength through deterrence. So far, this balancing act is faltering.

The regime’s challenge lies in avoiding escalation while maintaining a credible deterrent against Israel. Iran is in no position for a full-blown conflict, especially with its internal weaknesses. The country is grappling with an economic crisis, a loss of legitimacy, and the looming succession crisis of its aging Supreme Leader with no clear successor. Sanctions, particularly from the Trump era, have devastated Iran’s oil exports, which make up half of its national budget. The regime’s response—printing more money—has led to inflation and deepened poverty. Combined with the strict social and moral laws, the regime has become deeply unpopular, particularly among younger Iranians. Many oppose their government’s foreign policy, especially its ongoing support for proxy militias, while the country has suffered economically for nearly a decade.

It’s clear that Iran is not ready for a war with Israel, and the government knows it. This puts the Ayatollahs in a difficult position—they need to project political strength, yet Israel is destroying their proxy militias and decapitating the leadership of their strongest proxy forces in mere weeks. Iran fears an all-out conflict with Israel but also needs to respond to maintain legitimacy. This dilemma highlights the paradox of deterrence.

Make no mistake, Iran’s regime still despises Israel, America, and considers itself an enemy of the West. However, to preserve its power domestically, the regime is not prepared to enter an all-out war. By launching the missile barrage in response to Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon, Iran likely aimed to show its willingness to strike Israel, while also signaling to Netanyahu that it’s time to stop—placing the decision to de-escalate in his hands.

The problem for Iran is that recent developments suggest Israel is far from ready to conclude its operations, and further escalation seems inevitable. Iran’s aim to avoid military escalation while maintaining a deterrent is increasingly unrealistic.

Iran’s proxies have been severely weakened by Israeli attacks in Gaza, Lebanon, and even by the Houthis in Yemen, who are being countered with U.S. and UK support. Netanyahu likely sees this as the moment to strike, aiming to dismantle as much of Iran’s proxy network and military strength as possible. Iran, on the other hand, cannot stand by and watch this unfold, yet it must find a measured response that discourages Israel without provoking further retaliation. If this cycle of escalation continues, Iran will face a crucial decision: engage in war with Israel and its allies, or stand down and risk losing its legitimacy.