Why Is Iran Against Israel? Unraveling Decades Of Conflict
A Decades-Long Antagonism: Understanding the Roots
The foundational shift in the relationship between Iran and Israel occurred with the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. Prior to this pivotal event, Iran under the Shah maintained informal but significant ties with Israel, driven by shared strategic interests in the region. However, the rise of the Islamic Republic at the end of the 1970s fundamentally altered this dynamic. The new revolutionary government, ideologically committed to supporting Palestinian liberation and opposing what it viewed as Zionist occupation, swiftly cut all ties with Israel. This ideological stance became a cornerstone of Iran's foreign policy, transforming a pragmatic relationship into one of deep-seated animosity. The conflict between Israel and Iran has shaped the Middle East for decades, evolving from a cold war into a series of proxy confrontations and, more recently, direct military exchanges. This antagonism is rooted in differing visions for regional order. Iran sees itself as the leader of an "Axis of Resistance" against perceived Western and Israeli hegemony, advocating for a strong, independent Islamic presence in the region. Israel, on the other hand, views Iran's revolutionary ideology and its pursuit of regional influence as an existential threat, particularly given Iran's calls for its destruction. This fundamental clash of ideologies and strategic ambitions laid the groundwork for the prolonged and often covert conflict that has defined their interactions.The Proxy Wars and Covert Operations
For many years, the conflict between Iran and Israel was largely on a low boil. The two sides attacked each other — mostly quietly and in Iran’s case often by supporting various non-state actors. Iran has meticulously built a network of proxy forces across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and various Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria. These groups serve as Iran's forward operating bases, allowing Tehran to project power and exert pressure on Israel without direct military engagement, thereby maintaining a degree of plausible deniability. Israel, in turn, has responded with its own covert operations, including targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, cyberattacks on Iranian infrastructure, and numerous airstrikes against Iranian and Iranian-backed targets in Syria and Lebanon. Iran’s senior military commanders had concluded that it was essential to establish deterrence against Israel — and quickly — to turn or at least slow the tide of its onslaught on Hezbollah. This ongoing shadow war has been characterized by a complex dance of escalation and de-escalation, with both sides carefully calibrating their actions to avoid an all-out war while still pursuing their strategic objectives. The use of proxies allows both nations to inflict damage and signal resolve without triggering a full-scale conventional conflict, although the lines between proxy and direct engagement have become increasingly blurred.The Nuclear Ambition: Israel's Primary Concern
One of the most significant drivers of Israel's hostility towards Iran is Tehran's nuclear program. Israel has long been determined to prevent Iran, its fiercest enemy, from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have repeatedly stated that Iran's nuclear program poses an existential threat to the Jewish state. They assert that the offensive against Iran was carried out in order to cripple its nuclear program, which they consider a direct and immediate danger. From Israel's perspective, a nuclear-armed Iran would fundamentally alter the regional balance of power, emboldening its proxies and increasing the risk of conventional or unconventional attacks. This fear has led Israel to conduct numerous covert operations, including sabotage and assassinations, aimed at delaying or disrupting Iran's nuclear development. The international community, particularly the United States, shares some of Israel's concerns, leading to various sanctions regimes against Iran. However, Israel's red line for Iran's nuclear capabilities is often perceived as much lower than that of other global powers, contributing to the persistent tension and the potential for unilateral action.The Gaza War: A Catalyst for Escalation
At the heart of the recent escalation between Iran and Israel is the war in Gaza. On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists attacked southern Israel, where militants killed some 1,200 people and took hundreds hostage. This brutal attack triggered a massive Israeli military response in Gaza, aimed at dismantling Hamas. While Iran publicly supports Hamas and other Palestinian factions, the extent of its direct involvement in the October 7 attack remains a subject of debate. Nevertheless, the ensuing conflict in Gaza has undeniably intensified regional tensions and provided a fresh flashpoint for the Iran-Israel rivalry. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the widespread devastation have fueled anti-Israel sentiment across the Middle East, which Iran has skillfully leveraged to bolster its narrative of resistance. The conflict has put Tehran under immense pressure from its allies and public opinion to respond more forcefully against Israel. This dynamic has created a dangerous feedback loop, where actions in Gaza reverberate across the region, pulling Iran and Israel closer to direct confrontation than ever before. The war has effectively served as a catalyst, transforming a simmering shadow war into a more overt and dangerous standoff.Iran's Direct Retaliation: A Shift in Strategy
The long-standing shadow war took a dramatic turn in April 2024. Following an Israeli strike on Iran's consulate in Damascus on April 1, which killed several high-ranking Iranian military officials, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, vowed retaliation. This marked a significant departure from Iran's usual reliance on proxies. It came five months after it first attacked Israel with waves of about 300 drones and missiles in what was described as a direct, albeit largely symbolic, response. Israel said almost all were intercepted, thanks to its sophisticated air defense systems and assistance from allies. Iran had pledged to inflict “severe punishment” against Israel, but its first retaliatory strike, involving 100 drones, did little if any damage. This limited success highlighted a critical challenge for Iran: penetrating Israel’s substantial air defenses is a formidable task. Reports of drone attacks against Israel on June 13 further underscored Iran's willingness to engage directly, even if the effectiveness of these attacks remained limited. Despite the challenges facing Iran at the moment, many analysts believe Iran will have to respond in a way that goes beyond its previous attacks on Israel, indicating a potential shift towards more direct and possibly more impactful actions in the future. The attacks, in retaliation for Israel's strikes on Iran's military establishment and nuclear program, have alarmed Israel and the United States, with President Donald Trump holding out the prospect of further action.The Challenge of Penetrating Israeli Defenses
As Iran learned in those attacks, penetrating Israel’s substantial air defenses is a challenge. Israel possesses one of the world's most advanced multi-layered air defense systems, including the Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow systems, designed to intercept short, medium, and long-range threats. Most of the missiles Iran has deployed against Israel travel at hypersonic speed, but are barely maneuverable, so are not considered true hypersonic missiles, said Yehoshua Kalisky, a senior researcher. This lack of maneuverability at terminal phase makes them easier targets for advanced interceptors. The effectiveness of Israel's defenses, combined with early warning systems and intelligence sharing with allies, significantly reduces the impact of direct Iranian missile and drone attacks. This reality forces Iran to reconsider its direct strike capabilities and potentially invest in more sophisticated, maneuverable weaponry or to continue relying on overwhelming numbers to try and saturate Israeli defenses. The strategic implication for Iran is clear: direct, conventional attacks are unlikely to achieve significant military objectives against Israel's robust defensive capabilities, pushing Tehran to explore other avenues of pressure.Israel's Response and the Threat of Further Escalation
Following Iran's unprecedented direct attack in April 2024, Israel has vowed to retaliate against Iran. The question now is what happens next. The tit-for-tat exchanges have escalated the long-standing conflict to a dangerous new level, raising international concern that the war in Gaza and a more limited conflict on Israel’s border with Lebanon could spiral into a wider regional conflagration. The stakes are incredibly high, with both sides possessing significant military capabilities and a willingness to use them. Israel's response will likely be carefully calibrated to restore deterrence without triggering an all-out war. However, the exact nature and timing of such a response remain uncertain. The international community, led by the United States, has urged de-escalation, but the deep-seated animosity and the perceived need for both nations to assert their power make a peaceful resolution challenging. The cycle of retaliation risks drawing in other regional and global powers, transforming a bilateral conflict into a far broader and more devastating one.Why Israel Might Attack Now
The recent direct exchange has also raised the question: why did Israel attack Iran now, specifically referring to the initial strike on the Damascus consulate? While Israel has not officially confirmed its responsibility for the Damascus strike, the widely held belief is that it was an Israeli operation. The primary motivation for such an attack aligns with Israel's long-standing determination to prevent Iran, its fiercest enemy, from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and to degrade Iran's ability to support its proxies. Furthermore, Israel might view this period, while the world's attention is focused on the Gaza conflict, as an opportune moment to take decisive action against Iranian targets, particularly those related to its nuclear program or its command and control structures supporting regional militias. The perceived need to restore deterrence after the October 7 attacks and to signal resolve against Iran's growing influence could also be factors. Such actions, however, carry immense risks, as demonstrated by Iran's direct, albeit limited, retaliation, pushing the region closer to a direct military confrontation.The Geopolitical Chessboard: External Players
The conflict between Iran and Israel is not confined to their borders; it is a critical component of a larger geopolitical chessboard involving major global powers. Now, however, American and Israeli officials are warning of the risk of a direct attack by Iran against Israel, highlighting the deep involvement of the United States. The U.S. is Israel's staunchest ally, providing significant military and diplomatic support, and has often acted as a mediator or a deterrent in the region. The Iranian military, aware of this alliance, cautioned Israel and the US not to use force against Iran. “The Americans and Zionists know very well the price for using the word 'force against Iran'," state media cited Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi, spokesman for the Iranian armed forces, emphasizing the potential for a wider conflict if the U.S. becomes directly involved. Other global players also have a stake. As the conflict in West Asia continues, three Boeing 747 cargo planes departed from China to Iran over the past few days, raising questions about why Beijing would help Tehran. China, a major economic partner for Iran, has consistently opposed U.S. sanctions and has sought to maintain its influence in the Middle East. While China's support might primarily be economic, its continued engagement with Iran provides Tehran with crucial diplomatic and logistical lifelines, complicating international efforts to isolate Iran and adding another layer of complexity to the regional power dynamics.China's Role and Beijing's Support for Tehran
China's increasing engagement with Iran is a significant factor in the broader geopolitical landscape. While Beijing maintains a policy of non-interference, its economic and strategic interests in the Middle East are substantial. China is a major importer of Iranian oil and has invested heavily in Iran's infrastructure as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. The recent reports of Boeing 747 cargo planes departing from China to Iran underscore a continued, albeit often discreet, level of support. Why would Beijing help Tehran? From China's perspective, supporting Iran serves several strategic objectives: it helps diversify its energy sources, challenges U.S. hegemony in the region, and strengthens its position as a global power. By maintaining ties with Iran, China gains leverage and influence, even as it navigates the complex web of regional rivalries. This support, whether direct military aid or simply economic lifeline, helps Iran withstand international pressure and continue its strategic objectives, including its opposition to Israel, making the resolution of the Iran-Israel conflict even more intricate.The Delicate Balance: Iran's Strategic Dilemmas
Despite the bold rhetoric, Iran often operates with a delicate strategic balance, especially when considering direct retaliation. For instance, why Iran has not yet retaliated against Israel for Hamas leader’s killing (referring to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, though the provided text doesn't specify which leader, the context implies a high-profile target) highlights this complexity. Tehran is under pressure to avenge such assassinations, but analysts said it is balancing multiple factors. These factors include the risk of an overwhelming Israeli or U.S. response, the potential for internal instability, and the need to preserve its proxy networks. Despite the challenges facing Iran at the moment, Iran will, I believe, have to respond in a way that goes beyond its previous attacks on Israel, indicating a potential shift in its strategic calculus. However, this response must be carefully managed to avoid triggering a full-scale war that Iran may not be prepared for, especially given its economic vulnerabilities and the effectiveness of Israel's defenses. This strategic dilemma forces Iran to weigh the imperative of deterrence and retaliation against the catastrophic consequences of an all-out conflict.The Path Forward: What Happens Next?
The question now is what happens next. The current situation remains highly volatile, with both Iran and Israel having demonstrated a willingness to engage directly, albeit with varying degrees of success and caution. Iran has pledged to inflict “severe punishment” against Israel, and while its first retaliatory strike, involving 100 drones, did little if any damage, the very act of a direct attack marked a significant escalation. The future trajectory of this conflict hinges on the strategic calculations of both nations, the effectiveness of international diplomacy, and the unpredictable nature of regional events. Will Israel's next move be a limited, targeted strike, or will it aim for a more substantial blow against Iran's nuclear program or military infrastructure? Will Iran continue its direct attacks, or will it revert to its proxy strategy? The answers to these questions will determine whether the region descends into a broader conflict or if a fragile, uneasy deterrence can be re-established. The stakes are immense, not just for the Middle East, but for global stability.The intricate dance of power, ideology, and survival between Iran and Israel continues to define the Middle East's volatile landscape. From the ideological schism of the 1979 revolution to the recent direct military exchanges, the reasons why Iran is against Israel are deeply embedded in their respective national identities and strategic imperatives. While the conflict has largely been fought through proxies and covert operations, the recent direct confrontations signal a dangerous new phase, bringing the two long-standing adversaries to the precipice of an all-out war. Understanding these complex layers is crucial for anyone seeking to comprehend the dynamics of one of the world's most enduring and perilous rivalries.
What are your thoughts on the future of Iran-Israel relations? Do you believe a full-scale conflict is inevitable, or can diplomatic efforts prevail? Share your insights in the comments below, and explore our other articles for more in-depth analysis of geopolitical events in the Middle East.
Why you should start with why
Why Text Question · Free image on Pixabay
UTILITY COMPANIES MAKE MISTAKES - WHY? - Pacific Utility Auditing
