WILL THERE BE A WAR BETWEEN IRAN AND ISRAEL?

Yesterday, Iran attacked Israel by launching the biggest drone strike by a nation on another nation in the history of this military invention. It was also the first direct military action taken against Israel in several decades. The drone strike was a retaliatory act as a response to the attack on April 1st on an Iranian consulate in Damascus carried out by Israel. With mounting tensions in the region, the international state community is closely observing the latest developments with worries that more direct confrontations might follow. There are many intertwined layers and a multitude of factors that fuel the situation and might realistically lead to a military escalation in form of a full-scale war. Many technical indicators and structural factors point to more intense fighting that will inevitably pull regional and international actors into armed conflict or at least force more confrontational stances on the international plane. In this article, the current situation is being examined by explaining the different forces and dynamics that are in play.

Cultural Dimensions

The most obvious differences between Iran and Israel exist in the cultural realm. First and foremost, the two nations are home to homogeneous populations of societies with different religions. While the Iranians are Shiite Muslims, Israelis are Jews. Religious differences between nations are usually not a big problem. However, both nations are rather theocratically oriented and not secular nations. In Iran, this theocratic character is constitutionally established. That being so, domestic and international politics is heavily influenced by religious considerations. For example, Israel’s military campaigns and social policies against Palestine are religiously motivated as Israel aims at unifying the Palestinian territories because their religious main work claims that those territories belong to Israel. On the other hand, Iran’s international economic policies are restrictive in trading with certain nations deemed infidel. Therefore, those two nations have inherently contrasting views of how politics should be made. Whereas secular nations are generally more cooperative as those religious considerations do not limit their policy options, Iran and Israel are bound to certain policy courses because their normative policy frameworks are clearly defined. From there, certain interests evolve that those nations pursue, such as Israel’s territorial claim over Palestine. In non-devletist settings, like the current global order, this can lead to conflicts with other nations’ interests. The normative frameworks alone are not the issue but the political structure of striving for power and wealth. These goals are relative, and because that is the case, the normative frameworks produce policy outcomes that strengthen the own position and authority of those norms and values over others. In the current context, this means that Israel believes it has the right to conquer Palestinian lands and that the Jewish religion is superior. This false belief of superiority shapes the perception of Israeli policymakers who see the neighbouring Muslim nations as inferior, and this perception, in turn, informs Israel’s reckless policy course. Iran, on the other side, has the same belief of superiority against Israel and even partially against other Muslim nations. Here, the religion is very virtue-oriented and less pragmatic. In comparison to the very materially oriented structure of the Jewish belief, Iran does display a certain cultural arrogance towards Israelis and believes to be morally superior to them.

Paradoxically, those differences, or better said, the weight of those differences, arise from the two nations’ commonalities. Both are extremely old and developed societies. In fact, the Israelis, and hence Judaism, emerged from the early Iranians. It is, therefore, no surprise that the normative frameworks of those nations are so prominent in their policymaking. Moreover, their mutual belief of superiority over one another is also grounded in the strength of those normative frameworks, however, paired with the material goal of gaining more power and wealth than the other. Because the success in achieving those goals is dependent on the situation of the other, their respective foreign policies must be hostile – especially due to the geographical proximity of those nations. On the cultural side, Iran is also under pressure to underline its normative authority claim, as there are other Muslim nations that would doubt the virtue-based approach of the Iranian theocracy. Inaction on normatively important matters would undermine Iran’s credibility among the Muslim nations which are important, however, to entertain productive relations with. Iran’s normative principles are so important to the nation that it had bad relations with Saudi Arabia for a long time on the grounds that Saudi Arabia is not truly acting in accordance with Islamic teachings. Being that loyal to the theocratic principles and not retaliating against Israel when attacked would harm Iran’s credibility. Moreover, Iran is one of the most fierce supporters of Palestine on the grounds of Islamic brotherhood. On several occasions, Iran threatened Israel to take military action, and the attack on the consulate was the perfect precedent to launch an attack. Not doing so would have massively raised questions about how serious Iran is about the Palestinian cause. Israel, on the other hand, is financially and politically stronger through the backing of the United States of America. Relying on this alliance, Israel always seeks ways to provoke Iran on matters that cut into its normative framework. By tapping into the weakness of Iran’s highly principle-oriented policymaking, Israel tries to pull Iran into a conflict, knowing it would severely harm Iran and, hence, shift the regional power balance in favour of itself.

Economic Dimensions

In the economic realm, the biggest danger is Israel’s full reliance on its alliance with the United States of America. Having a high degree of control over North American politics, there will be continued financial and military support for the Israeli cause. In light of the normative goals of Israel, this created a full focus on the realisation of those goals. There is no need for Israel to make any compromises as regards their goals because there will be financial backing. Such an egocentric perspective on politics reduces the possibility of cooperation and increases the insistence on enforcing the desired policy course, regardless of other interests. Iran is more limited in its economic means. As outlined above, there is an equally normatively driven policy agenda, and with adequate financial means, the rigour of Iranian politics would definitely increase. However, the reduced capabilities force Iran to be more reluctant to confront Israel more openly so far. There is also the inherent need to seek diplomatic approaches to avoid escalation – Israel does not have such a need from an economic perspective. There are reputational forces that keep Israel from pushing its agenda through with maximum pace, which is why the conquest of Palestine has been incremental for so many years. However, the economic means grant Israel more policy space. At some point, however, the continued furthering of Israeli interests will reach a point where Iran will need to intervene, regardless of its weakness relative to Israel. Knowing this, Iran will also need to establish more solid alliances with oppositional forces, such as Russia and China. There are relations with those nations, especially Russia, but they are far from being as brotherly as the bond between Israel and the United States of America. As there is no economic need to stop for Israel, there will be no stopping to cooperate or respect the political boundaries of other regional actors.

Further, the rifts in the global economy over the last couple of years led nations that are not allied with the Euro-American nations to form new economic alliances and cooperations. Notably, Russia and China have become more active in building new economic connections across the world, including the Arab-Iranian world. Laying geographically between the two worlds and being a resource-rich region, those two nations will intensify efforts to penetrate the region economically. As Israel and the United States of America are still present in the Arab world and even allied with Saudi Arabia, Iran might become an increasingly important economic partner for Russia and China to counterbalance the Euro-American presence. In light of the economic isolation and the generally weak economic outlook of Iran, it will happily enter into more close relations. Only three years ago, China and Iran signed a 25-year cooperation agreement. Relations between Russia and Iran have predominantly been positive, including military and economic cooperation. Those positive relations will intensify because Iran needs more resources, and Russia does not want to leave the region to the Euro-Americans, including Israelis. This will also increase international tensions, which already rise on a daily basis ever since the Ukraine war erupted.

On a more abstract economic level, the global economy has entered a phase of capitalism where its marginal diminishing returns are visibly declining. As the markets are flooded with goods and services that make life already incredibly easy in the European and North American economies, the natural potential for further growth in those regions is limited. There are only two ways for continued economic growth: artificially creating demand or expanding into economies that are farther behind. Both strategies are being adopted by the United States of America, Europe and their ally Israel. However, because actors like Russia and China compete for the same markets, there is an inherent need to counterbalance those efforts. In the region of Arab nations, Israel is an important hub of influence that needs to be preserved and expanded to secure access to those markets. Also, there have been multiple attempts by nations like Libya or Iraq to establish currencies that are backed by physical materials, such as gold. As this endangers the status of the US-Dollar as a reserve currency, those regions need to be either destabilised or controlled. Since Iran is the only political system that is no longer permeable politically due to its theocratic constitution and political isolation, its influence on the region counteracts the interests of the United States of America. They, in turn, will need to utilise Israel to engage in quarrels with Iran continuously. This drains Iran’s resources, damages its reputation, and isolates it to some degree. All of those effects hinder Iran from effectively exerting influence on the markets and currencies in the region.

Future Outlook

To predict a war is a difficult and serious matter. Generally, one should be very careful when making such an assessment and not create such a scenario lightly. In this case, however, there are many structural components that make an open confrontation between Iran and Israel likely, though not inevitable. For one, the two cultures of those societies are normatively so clearly defined that the possible policy options in the light of the non-devletist goals of power and wealth are extremely limited – both lack political flexibility. Iran is a little bit more limited in what it can do because it has a more virtue-oriented cultural structure and is under pressure from the other Muslim nations that Iran claims normative superiority over. Second, Israel has no financial incentive to avoid confrontation with any nation in the region. It has nearly inexhaustible resources coming from across the Atlantic. That being so, it can press on to get its way, forcing Iran at some point to become active militarily. Third, the United States of America wants to retain control over the Arab nations and their resource markets. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have shown that those resource-dependent rentier states bear the potential to transform into expansive capitalist economies, creating important markets in times when the natural growth potential in the core territories of Europe and North America is exhausted. As the relations with more Eastern nations are becoming more bitter by the day, every market that can be controlled is a win for the United States of America. In this case, Israel fulfills the controlling function, and where control is not possible, destabilisation is utilised to hinder the opposing actors from accessing those markets. Pushing against the economic and political power of Israel and its overseas ally drains resources from Iran and its supporters – resources that would have higher returns on investment elsewhere. The only realm in which Israel and its allies are massively inferior to Iran, Russia and China is the military realm. Therefore, if the reckless expansion of Israel and its destabilisation efforts in its neighbouring nations do not stop, those nations will resort to military means. As things stand today, there are no normative and economic reasons for Israel and its allies to stop. Their military inferiority is something they do not perceive that way because it hides under this massive economic power, fuelling their erratic ambition to gain further control in the Arab region. Considering all of the above, a military escalation is plausible.