Iran-Israel Conflict: The Good, Bad, and Ugly

On Tuesday evening, Iran launched approximately 180 ballistic missiles targeting at least four key locations in Israel, escalating concerns of a major war in West Asia. Here’s a breakdown of what this could mean for the region and the conflict.
The ugly side of the situation is clear. There are growing fears of a full-scale war between the two nations and their allies. The intensity of this missile barrage was notably higher than a similar attack earlier this year, aiming to overwhelm Israel’s Arrow defense system. Tuesday’s Iranian missile assault included Emad and Ghadr types, and it marked the first use of the hypersonic medium-range “Fattah-2” ballistic missile, a significant show of force.
“Iran made a big mistake tonight, and it will pay for it,” said Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on Tuesday, adding, “Whoever attacks us, we attack them.”
Earlier, Israel carried out at least five strikes in Syria targeting pro-Iranian early warning and defense systems, which would have detected Israeli aerial movements towards Iran.
This might prompt Israel to use its air force against Iran through Syrian and Iraqi airspace. In a worst-case scenario, Israel could retaliate against targets inside Iran, potentially spiraling into a full-blown war. Encouraged by the apparent success of its Fattah missiles, Iran may feel emboldened to pursue further attacks. If such escalation occurs, it would likely lead to unimaginable loss of human life and could further destabilise the already fragile global economy.
Despite Iran’s missile attacks, Israel has continued its raids in Gaza and Lebanon. According to Palestinian medical officials, at least 32 people were killed in Israeli airstrikes in southern Gaza overnight. Iran’s actions could undermine any proposals for a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon. Israel has initiated a limited ground offensive in Lebanon, with evacuation orders issued for southern villages to relocate across the Awali River. These missile strikes reduce the domestic pressure on Netanyahu to halt the offensive in Gaza and Lebanon, which will only exacerbate the existing humanitarian crisis in these areas.
Amid the grim outlook of two regional powers on the brink of a full-scale war, there are still glimmers of hope. One such perspective came from former U.S. President Donald Trump. Despite his controversial persona, Trump’s candidness often reveals insights into the highest levels of government decision-making.
When asked about the current Iran-Israel escalation, Trump referenced an earlier Iranian missile strike on a U.S. base in Iraq during his presidency, which left several U.S. soldiers injured. He remarked, “I thought it was a very nice thing,” referring to the fact that there were no fatalities, and suggested that Iran “had to do that.” His comments pointed to the notion that a more significant U.S. loss at that time could have triggered an even harsher military response, possibly sparking a cycle of unavoidable offensives.
Similarly, in the current conflict, the absence of reported fatalities provides both Israel and Iran a face-saving opportunity. While Iran can claim to have penetrated Israel’s air defences, Israel can highlight the successful interception of most ballistic missiles, minimising damage and preventing loss of life. All of Iran’s targets were military in nature, perhaps signalling a desire to maintain the status quo despite the outward aggression.
The targeted sites included the Nevatim Airbase near Beersheba and Tel Nof Airbase, 20 kilometres south of Tel Aviv, both home to Israeli F-35 fighter jets. However, with advance warning, it’s likely that these jets were airborne, avoiding major damage.
Provided enough political wisdom on both sides, it might just be the kind of Iranian response that the people of Iran and the state of Israel can live with.