Will the War in Gaza Ignite the Middle East?..Israel and Iran On a Collision Course

There are a lot of posters in this forum, and many voices in the American political system, that have been itching to see the US and/or Israel take on Iran. The current war has the potential to give them what they have been clamoring for despite both sides being reluctant to see such a scenario unfold for now.

On one side is Iran and its axis of resistance, who might find their credibilty and support totality eroded if they allow Israel to successfully take out one of their allies. Besides, as the scale of civilian casualties in Gaza rise, the pressures to do something meaningful in response will inevitably grow. For now, at least, Iran and the axis of resistance are engaged in actions that are meant to tell the other side not to go overboard without taking the steps that would make a larger war all but inevitable.

On the other side, the US (as a country and not a lobbyist for pro Israel voices) will have great reason not to see a wider regional war given its geopolitical and larger economic and political ramifications. Israel, on the other hand, is definitely more interested in taking out the axis of resistance one-by-one and in isolation, as opposed to going after them all together. Their basic posture is to first take care of Hamas before turning to Hezbollah and Iran.

But there are times when the situation dictates its own dynamics. The current situation in the region is beyond untenable; in many ways, it is intolerable. A change in the status quo ante is necessary even at the cost of a major war. If it comes to that, lets just hope the change is going to be for the better and not for worse.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/will-war-gaza-ignite-middle-east
Will the War in Gaza Ignite the Middle East?
Escalating Violence Could Set Israel and Iran on a Collision Course
...

 

When one's ally is a terrorist organization, which conducts such a depraved attack on another country's civilians, as did Hamas, I think this resulting in that ally being "taken out," is a given. I am curious as to what actions (to which you allude, without describing), Iran is undertaking, "that are meant to tell the other side not to go overboard." Also, what do you mean by "overboard?" I think that Israel will do all it can to completely destroy Hamas, and I don't think anyone could reasonably blame them, for that.

The issue you mention about civilian casualties, no doubt troubles many, besides myself. Our President Biden has been, I believe, stressing the wisdom of not repeating U.S. mistakes, from our "war on terror"-- which influence, I hope, will win out in the end, but I'm still holding my breath. The other issue, to which I assume you later refer, as the "untenable... intolerable... status quo," is the treatment of Palestinians by Israel, and getting some movement in the glacial process of resolving the longstanding land dispute, between Israelis & Palestinians. This matter is sufficiently substantial, and complex, to warrant its own thread.

So, to turn back to your thread's central question: I think it is unlikely to become a grand Middle East War, though the potential, certainly exists. It is hard to gauge the thinking of Netanyahu, and even harder to guess what the government if Iran is thinking. I would assume, however, that Iran's internal strife, combined with the two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups, moved to area, will keep Iran, proper, from making a direct move (not to mention, that they'd need cross both Iraq and Syria, for their own forces to reach Israel). If Iran is going to act, it is going to be through its preferred method of proxies, in Hezbollah. That, however, would be foolish, for it would only risk the loss of a second of Iran's allies.

While I do not approve of Israel's policy towards Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, I think that Hamas & Iran have pursued a poor strategy, regarding resolving this, in a way they would see as beneficial. Military attacks are only going to meet rejection by the international community, and get a nation sanctioned, or a group designated as terrorists. All along, Hamas & Iran should have, instead, been pushing for world diplomatic involvement. There has been much objection (even among Americans) to the Gaza detention camp, to the Israeli expansion of its settlements in the West Bank, and to its illegal annexing of Occupied lands. The potential has been there, to get the world to force Israel's hand. But as soon as you start shooting rockets and so forth, your argument is lost.

 

The purpose of this thread wasn't to discuss some of the side issues you are raising, nor to try to justify or otherwise adjudge either side in the conflict. Many of those issues I can nonetheless address some other time. But right now, the issue relates to how likely is that we will see the conflict expanded? Hezbollah has stated that a massive Israeli ground invasion into Gaza will bring them into the war. And Iran has made some noises about the issue as well. My own view is that Hezbollah entering the war is right now close to a 50/50 proposition depending on what actions the Israelis take. The chances of Iran being or getting involved are lower but not insignfiicant. In the short term, probably 25% but in the medium term higher.

 

I think the chances are 100% if Hezbollah attempts to invade Israel because Israel must and will eliminate Hamas and that will occur soon. They have no other option. I think an invasion will probably bring American air power into the war as well. As a state sponsor of terrorism Iran doesn't need to be involved directly. It has terrorist groups to do the dying. So I doubt Iran would be stupid enough to get involved directly.

There you go. That's my opinion. Bad luck to you.

 

Hezbollah is already involved. There are plenty of anti-tank missiles and infiltration attempts from Lebanon on our northern border.. Although the terrorists are members of Palestinian organizations, they wouldn't be able to use southern Lebanon, or southern Syria, as a launching pad, without Hezbollah's blessing.

I believe the Saudis will do everything in their power to prevent a wider regional conflict. What can they do, exactly, I don't know, though I'm quite sure it has to be something very useful to the Iranian regime. On the other hand, Arab leaders are eager to see Iran burn, and Israel has the means to make it happen. Iranian leaders are walking an incredibly fine line here.

 

Lets break this down as follows:
1) what are the chances that Israel will go through with its threats to embark on a large land invasion of Gaza? The one that has been painted as being "imminent" on a daily basis for a couple of weeks now? I say chances of that are 60-40 in favor of Israel making the move that many have been anticipating.
2) what are the chances that in response to a large scale Israeli invasion of Gaza, that Hezbollah will get involved in a major way? I say chances of that are 60-40 in favor of Hezbollah escalating its attacks to the point where there is actual war between Israel and Hezbollah/Lebanon.
3) what are the chances that Israel decides to pursue a seige warfare posture and bombs Gaza while making sure the supply of electricity, water, food, etc are depleted to force some sort of a capitulation? I say that is happening and despite the news about the humanitarian supplies agreed, this is what Israel is trying to do and the question is whether it will be forced to change that posture. In other words, what are the chances of this posture continuing despite any international or diplomatic pressures? I say probably will be more than 80%.
4) what are the chances that if Israel persists on seige warfare to the point where the people of Gaza are facing death because of lack of supplies, Hezbollah would get involved? I would say probably 70%.

That is how I see things with regard to Israel/Hezbollah, although there is also the chance that the spiral of minor incidents we have already had will gain a momentum of their own and bring about a full scale war regardless. The chance of that happening is quite high as well.

 

The purpose of denying electricity etc is to motivate Hamas to give up the hostages. That will end if and when they release them. It is something they can fix themselves. It won't stop the campaign to put Hamas out of business but it will help the Palestinians. I don't see any evidence that Hamas cares about the Palestinians, however. They just want to kill Jews.

I agree that there will be some serious war if Hezbollah invades. I don't think the Israelis are interested in diplomacy or the opinions of others. They want to rid themselves of Hamas and, perhaps Hezbollah with the help of the U.S. and help is nearby floating in the Mediterranean.

 

*Your claim here, about Hezbollah's statements, I see neither in your OP, nor in your cited article. Explanation?

Your linked article, in fact, says nothing of the sort:

<Snip>
Iran’s ally Hezbollah, too, displayed relative restraint in its initial response to the Israel-Hamas war, launching small-scale attacks that seemed designed to avoid serious escalation.

At the start of the Israel-Hamas war, key actors took positions that quelled concerns about regional escalation.

Lately, however, the public messages from Iran’s leaders have begun to function as a tacit endorsement of regional militant groups that might wish to join the conflict—and they have left the door open for a direct Iranian intervention. In recent days, Hezbollah began to launch more sophisticated anti-tank missiles into Israel’s north, testing previous Israeli redlines; Israel has responded with counterstrikes on targets in southern Lebanon.

Further escalation on the Lebanese border would be extremely dangerous. Hezbollah possesses far more advanced military capabilities than Hamas does, including the capacity to launch more accurate and powerful missiles that can reach all of Israel. Missile barrages from Hezbollah could more easily overwhelm Israel’s missile defenses than even the most potent strikes from Hamas. Israel has already ordered the evacuation of more than two dozen towns near the border, either to prepare for or try to prevent the emergence of a second front by reducing the potential for civilian casualties. Across the border in Lebanon, too, civilians have been evacuating towns that are in the line of fire.
<End Snip>

Note that nowhere does it say that Hezbollah has vowed to enter the war, under any circumstances. So you appear to be only trying to make the situation seem more precarious, than it really is. Though I am not a regular reader of Foreign Affairs, I have taken note, from other articles, a tendency for them to focus on the worst case scenarios, which I think are often not the way things pan out. But again, even they, do not claim that Hezbollah has issued any promises, of coming fully into this conflict, to support Hamas or protect Palestinians.


To keep my posts more bite-sized, for those who come to PF without the mental appetite for heavy servings of commingling concepts, I will continue with Iran's rhetoric, in a separate post.

 

I am citing these articles below only with regard to the issue of warnings regarding a ground invasion from Hezbollah and Iran.
https://www.voaafrica.com/a/lebanes...on-could-trigger-wider-conflict-/7314913.html
Lebanese Militant Group Warns that Israeli Gaza Invasion Could Trigger Wider Conflict
18 October 2023

Iran had made similar warnings
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023...-escalation-if-gaza-ground-offensive-launched

Iran warns Israel of regional escalation if Gaza ground offensive launched
Iran warns that any Israeli ground offensive in the Gaza Strip could expand the scope of the conflict elsewhere in the Middle East.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-gaza-ground-assault-delay-hamas-ehud-barak-rcna121174
Israel is still primed for a bloody ground assault in Gaza in the coming days, ex-PM says
A difficult assault on the Gaza Strip is still likely in the coming days, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak told NBC News.
Oct. 19, 2023, 7:31 PM +0330

 

Hamas doesn't equal Palestinian. Iran definitely has a choice of whether or not it gets involved. No one is forcing them.

I think the USA absolutely will protect Israel if a larger war erupts. As we are doing now taking out missiles and drones headed to Isreal in the Red Sea.

Iran should be warned that there's an argument for redrawing the borders of the Middle East to reduce tension, and Iran better hope it's not one of the borders that need adjusting.

 

@Iranian Monitor

<Snip>
In an Al Jazeera interview on October 15, Iran’s foreign minister warned that as long as Israel’s campaign in Gaza continues, “it is highly probable that many other fronts will be opened,” adding that if Israel “decides to enter Gaza, the resistance leaders will turn it into a graveyard of the occupation soldiers.” Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has echoed such threats, stating that there shouldn’t be “any expectation” that Iran will hold back militants if Israel’s attacks on Gaza persist. Some Iran experts interpret these statements as political posturing or as an indication that Iran is distancing itself from the actions of its non-state partners, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shiite militant groups in Iraq. But the possibility of open Israeli-Iranian clashes cannot be ruled out, especially as Iranian leaders’ public support for militia attacks narrow the space for deniability.
<End Snip>

It is from parts of the article, like this, you seem to have drawn your erroneous notion, that Hezbollah, itself, "has stated that a massive Israeli ground invasion into Gaza will bring them into the war." Rather, all that there is to support even that possibility, are threats, issued by Iranian officials. It is the possibility of an Israel - Iran conflict, on which your Foreign Affairs article places an inordinate amount of focus. I think the assessment of "some Iran experts," cited above, that this is "political posturing" by Iran, is mostly correct.

Before moving on, I just want to note the way the article states ideas which, in some sense, might have validity, but which are not presented in a context to be understood in a way that is relative to the other ideas, it offers. If we look at the text, highlighted in red: Iran's making claims of what other groups, which it sponsors, will do, cannot equally both "distance itself" from those groups actions, while simultaneously "narrow the space for deniability." I think the latter, is the more practical result.


But how would you think that Iran would, itself, get involved? I would guess that (other than supplying Hezbollah) you are only thinking that they might try firing missiles at Israel? That seems a rather reckless step, even for Iran. So, once again, I think it is mostly just talk, we are hearing from Iran, though they do have proxy, in Hezbollah, which could back up some of it.

That said, I was looking for a source to validate my biggest concern, of Hezbollah using Iranian drones, and I found this other article, which actually does somewhat support your claim, of Hezbollah's warning:

<Snip>
“The self proclaimed Axis of Resistance [Hezbollah] has suggested that it will not allow for a ground invasion, and it seems the Americans have given the Israelis a green light to do ground invasion. So in light of this, Hezbollah can’t really backtrack,” said Krieg, senior lecturer at King’s College London, and CEO of MENA analytica, a London-based strategic risk consultancy firm focusing on the wider Middle East region. (US President Joe Biden has publicly said it would be a “big mistake” for Israel to occupy Gaza but otherwise the White House has dodged the question of whether it would support an invasion.

He added that if a conflict happens, and “it’s very likely that it comes, Hezbollah is recalculating its risks and its objectives, and I would say that anything that can be done remotely from Lebanon without Hezbollah fighters being put in harm’s way and into combat is more likely.”

That would suggest Hezbollah could turn to artillery and missiles, but also to its extensive stockpile of unmanned systems, many purportedly from Iran.

“Hezbollah drone technology is very sophisticated,” he said. Krieg appear to diverge from Samaan’s view that they could the drones would easily overwhelm Israel’s defenses, as Krieg said Jerusalem’s counter-drone tech is “fairly sophisticated and they have been preparing for this.”
<End Snip>

https://www.google.com/amp/s/breakingdefense.com/2023/10/how-drone-warfare-in-israel-could-dramatically-change-if-hezbollah-joins-the-fight-analysts/?amp=1?bshm=rime/2

 

1. Israel seems more likely to do a surgical strike on Hamas than do a large land invasion. Or they would have started the land invasion already.

2. 100% chance Hezbollah gets involved. There has already been skirmishes with them on the Lebanese border.

3. 0% chance of siege warfare.

4. 100% The Gazan aid will flow through the Egyptian border crossing soon if not immediately.

 

Though I think I have just addressed this, in the post I'd just addressed to you-- in these articles you cite, it is usually Iran, not Hezbollah, directly, issuing the warnings. In the one source you provide which does cite Hezbollah, the "threat" is far from a guarantee, since it is expressed with the modal form "could trigger." This means only that it is a possibility, which has not been "taken off the table," not that it is a certain consequence, to follow.

That said, with the article I'd cited in my last post, suggesting that Hezbollah's current supply of Iranian drones is both sizable and advanced in sophistication, that does seem to increase concerns over Hezbollah's using them. In the end, however, nothing is going to change Israel's resolve to extirpate Hamas from Gaza, nor is any threat likely to alter the prevailing view, in at least the West, that both Israel has every right to do this, as well as that that it is an eminently reasonable course of action. Hamas has cooked, its own goose.

 

I honestly don't know why you are trying to argue about facts. Whether and to what extent Hezbollah will go through with its warnings is another issue, but it is a fact: Hezbollah has repeatedly warned that a large scale Israeli invasion of Gaza will see them open another front. I have heard many interviews with Hezbollah officials on Iranian media. I cite you western reports with whatever spin they like to put to things just because you had asked for the basis for my comment. Incidentally, here is a report from today that says essentially the same thing:
https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...ficial-group-heart-israel-hamas-war-104197268
Hezbollah official says his group already 'is in the heart' of Israel-Hamas war
A top official with Hezbollah has vowed that Israel will pay a high price whenever it starts a ground offensive in the Gaza Strip

 

I'm sorry but your knowledge of the military dynamics at issue is woefully inadequate. I will educate on the subject later as it is pretty late here and don't have the time now. But as for the US position, privately the US has been leaning on Israel not to rush into a ground invasion and risk a multi front war. I am not saying the Israelis will listen and they have been told that in case they do launch a ground invasion, the US will support them and even be on their side of the fighting. US ground troops aren't being contemplated, but the US has send plenty of assets in the region to augment Israel's aerial capabilities and they will essentially be at Israel's disposal.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...israel-and-iran-on-a-collision-course.614327/
Biden’s Influence Turns Israel's Ground War Plans Into ‘Something Different'

p.s.
Below is what I wrote in another thread about the issue a couple of weeks ago.

 

It is interesting, the way that group perspective comes into play, in a discussion such as this. Try to keep in mind, that I am not attempting to "argue about facts," here. I am, in truth, stating facts, which you seem to ignore. For example, an Hezbollah official, vowing "that Israel will pay a high price," is not a specific threat. Can you deny that? This, likewise, applies to your prior citation, attributing to Hezbollah the warning that "an Israeli ground invasion of Gaza could trigger wider conflict in the Middle East." What they are being represented as saying, factually, is that a "wider conflict (which, itself, is an undefined term)" might be the result, of an Israeli ground invasion. I am sure that your own language accounts for such differences as between the English words "will" or "shall," versus the concepts of "could," or "may."

This even applies to the quote from the article which I had come across, on my own, saying that Hezbollah has "suggested that it will not allow for a ground invasion." Suggesting something, is a much weaker threat, than stating it. Additionally, the words "will not allow," are, again, non-specific. So, to most Americans, I will venture, this just sounds like sword rattling.


But perhaps it is me, who is misinterpreting your meaning. That is, I had taken your statement--

Iranian Monitor said: ↑
The purpose of this thread wasn't to discuss some of the side issues you are raising, nor to try to justify or otherwise adjudge either side in the conflict. Many of those issues I can nonetheless address some other time. But right now, the issue relates to how likely is that we will see the conflict expanded? Hezbollah has stated that a massive Israeli ground invasion into Gaza will bring them into the war...
<End Quote>

-- to mean that Hezbollah was stating unequivocally that it would join the fight with Hamas, in full: implying it would attack Israel with ground forces, that is, would attempt to invade. If you want to use a parallel, let's compare the commitment among NATO nations: if Poland, for example, is attacked by Russia, then all other member nations shall come to Poland's aid, in an unreserved fashion. There are really no ifs, ands, or buts, about that-- and any nation which attacks a NATO country therefore understands exactly what that means: they will face every resource at NATO's disposal; that NATO will do whatever it takes, to beat back the aggressor, at a minimum, but probably to completely defeat it.

Perhaps, however, this was not what you had meant to suggest. If, however, all you'd been saying, with the phrase "bring them into the war," had been that Hezbollah would step up its current, ineffective, shell fire-- well, that is a far less significant deterrent, or cause for concern. After all, *according to your latest supporting article, Hezbollah is already claiming, it "is in the heart' of <the> Israel-Hamas war.*

 

LOL. Sure thing, General-- I can hardly wait for you to find the time to get around to sharing your expertise.

It looks like it is your own understanding of the "dynamics," is crucially mistaken. The U.S. is absolutely not trying to dissuade Israel from conducting a ground invasion. The entire reason why we have been urging them to delay launching it, is to resolve, first, the logistical issue of allowing all civilians to exit the war zone, and have some safe, adequate accomodations, for the duration of the fighting. It is only the unnecessary loss of "collateral" civilian casualties, which concerns us-- not the ultimate fate of Hamas (the annihilation of whom, were they not to surrender, I am sure we would applaud).

No duh. There is absolutely nothing that you are sharing, here-- after your reply's insultingly patronizing start, telling me that my own knowledge is "woefully inadequate"-- of which, I am not already aware; you are going to need to do a Hell of a lot better than that, to make it seem that your pretense of superior understanding, was anything other than an empty conceit.

 

The American are involved to make sure the Israelis don't get smashed by the surrounding belligerents, not for the welfare of palestinian civilians.

Smfh.

 

Probably a good idea, to shake your head-- to blur the view of your face. I will finish explaining how foolish your reply had been, in a separate post, because whenever I have returned any of your insults with my own, my posts have seemed to be immediately removed. For someone who likes to talk tough, you are clearly very thin-skinned.

 

Well I'm totally not Surprised by your refusal to address the point of my contention and rather solely focus on personal insults and desperately trying to prove that I'm just a simple fool that doesn't have your superior understanding of American tactics

Lmao. Pro tip: the white saviour (USA) card is so last century and perhaps in future try to not make things personal ok buddy

 

It is inexplicable, why you would have the (once more, erroneous) idea that I was refusing to address your point, when I'd said, as clearly as I think is possible, that I would address your point, in my subsequent reply-- which I have, already posted. Please explain to me, how I should have worded my first reply, for you to have correctly understood it:

DEFinning said: ↑
Probably a good idea, to shake your head-- to blur the view of your face. I will finish explaining how foolish your reply had been, in a separate post, because whenever I have returned any of your insults with my own, my posts have seemed to be immediately removed...


I had done it this way, as I thought I had adequately intimated, because I was not willing to put in all that effort, for your benefit, just to have my entire post's work be expunged, because of one or two questionable words. I had been anticipating a spiteful, emotional response from you-- which, your multicolored, mini-diatribe, quoted above, l guess shows had not been a realistic concern?

Anyway, I put the part that I wouldn't mind if you had deleted, separate from the laborious explanation of what I considered the obvious implication, in the post which you had, nonetheless, grossly misinterpreted.


Smfh.

 

Ok. So basically you're continuing to say The American are involved to make sure there are minimal palestinian civilian casualties and your proof is biden touching down to proclaim himself the white saviour (standard white supremacist tactic) WEEKS AFTER the USA sent battleships to Gaza's shores to make sure the Israelis weren't smashed by the surrounding belligerents.

American are warmongers and they'd love nothing better than a full blown war. They spend more money on weapons than the rest of the world combined, what use is a stockpile of bullets if not put to use, bad business otherwise.

 

How about the Persians step up and purge the nation of the fascist religious zealots in charge of it?

 

@DEFinning
I am not sure what is your point? If you want to say that Hezbollah hasn't issued an iron clad ultimatum through its warnings, I am not disagreeing and I think you have misread what I have stated. If you want to pretend that worries about a 2nd front are not a very significant part of the equation affecting military tactics and posture in this war, we totally disagree. But I am not going to expend energy to convince you as it doesn't really change anything for me.

Anyway, I like to update the odds I had given with regard to certain variables relevant to whether a larger war will engulf the region as follows:

1) Major Land Invasion by Israel into Gaza: I had given the odds at 60%, meaning more likely than not. I think the odds have increased to 80% (but still not clear if Israel will try to enter Gaza city or instead try to split Gaza into 2, trying to take effective control of southern Gaza while taking a much more cautious approach towards moving into northern Gaza, mostly relying on its air and artillery to pound northern Gaza).
2) Hezbollah's response to any large scale invasion of Gaza: I had given the odds at 60% of Hezbollah responding to such a move by Israel in a way that would basically lead to full scale war between Hezbollah and Israel. I think the odds of Hezbollah responding in such manner have declined and it is now 50/50. Meaning neither scenario would surprise me.
3) Seige of Gaza: I had said the chances of Israeli pursuing a seige policy towards Gaza is 80%. I believe that is about right, except the major brunt of the seige policy will be borne by northern Gaza.
4) Hezbollah reaction to seige? I still think that if such a seige begins to totally imperil the lives of the Palestinians in Gaza, making them face starvation and death on a mass scale, Hezbollah will most likely (80%) be forced to respond.

 

In the meantime, I should mention the US has placed many of its troops on "ready to deploy" orders and trying to flex more muscle, while adding substantial batteries of air defense systems to Israel (on top of all the armaments, bombs and supplies that have been offloaded or handed to the Israelis since its war on Hamas). A $14 Billion additional aid package beyond the amounts already in the pipelines and within the purview of the US government from various programs to be sent to Israel is awaiting the US Congress reaching a decision on its future speaker to overcome beaucratic hurdles. The money pumped into Israel is very critical since one of the calculations about why Israel would face severe problems with a prolonged war is how its economy could handle such a thing. The Israeli currency had plummetted and in case of a war that gets more heated, absent an influx of US$$ into the Israeli economy, the Israeli eocnomy would face even worst problems than what Israel has been working on lobbying to see the other economies in the region (including Iran) to suffer.