Israel has to choose among the options, which range from bad to worse. No choice is a good choice. Its inaction would be interpreted as an act of cowardice, while an action may throw it into a whirlwind of a full-scale war. The advice from every other country is to exercise ‘strategic restraint’. All the Western states and other major powers have advised Israel to avoid escalation and shun its desire for instant retribution. To an outsider, this appears to be a rational choice for Israel. However, from Israel’s perspective, this is hardly an option. Neither the regime nor the people will approve of such a policy.
On the issue of the ongoing crisis in West Asia, the Financial Express Online interviewed Dr Rajan Kumar, who teaches at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. He has written extensively on international politics and specialises in the affairs of the Global South. We asked him questions on possible options for Israel, its constraints, and the potential role of BRICS countries in pressing for negotiations.
Can we expect Israel to exercise a ‘strategic restraint’?
Israel takes pride in projecting itself as a hard-military state. Tel Aviv has not pursued a policy of restraint in the last three decades. Its regime fears that Israel’s inaction will be portrayed as a sign of a weak state which chickened out of Iranian fear. There is a concern that Iran may repeat such an action, and its inaction may also encourage other actors to attack Israel’s territory in future. Domestically, Israel’s opposition parties will take advantage of this predicament by belittling Netanyahu as an indecisive and weak leader. Netanyahu is already on a sticky wicket, and his days are numbered. He has failed miserably in fulfilling the two key objectives: getting all the hostages released and eliminating Hamas. Instead, his regime came under severe international opprobrium for pursuing a scorched-earth policy in Gaza, leading to more than 33,000 civilian deaths. His scorecard is very poor. Therefore, he is unlikely to exercise a rational choice that amounts to a political hara-kiri.
Instead, he has every incentive to escalate the war. A direct conflict with Israel will shift the focus from Gaza to Iran. We can already witness that the narrative is gradually shifting from atrocities in Gaza to the devilish acts of Iran. Further, Netanyahu firmly believes that the solution to the crisis lies in hitting the nucleus rather than rotating in the peripheries. Israel pursues a policy of doing maximum damage to the enemy and not a targeted strike. Netanyahu wants to attack Iran before it develops a nuclear bomb and a nuclear deterrence. If one may recall, Israel attacked Iraq’s nuclear reactor Tamuz I near Baghdad in 1981 on the same pretext. It will not be a surprise if Israel pursues a similar action.
What are the constraints of Israel in attacking Iran?
He faces two severe constraints: first, the Biden administration does not want the war to escalate in an election year. The US will be sucked in directly if the war with Iran begins. It does not want to create another Iraq in West Asia where it may have to deploy ground forces again. And second, Israel does not seem prepared for a full-scale war with Iran. It is not militarily prepared and does not have allies. It cannot depend on Arab states in its war against Iran. Iran has a strong army of more than half a million regular forces. It has a big pile of missiles, drones and other weapons. But more importantly, Iran can activate its proxies, viz., Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and Hamas in different places. Israel would be besieged, and it cannot be assured of its win in a tactical strike. And Israel is unlikely to go for a long-term war.
Where is the silver lining? Do you see any chances of negotiations?
Negotiations are still possible, but a lot will depend on the US. Washington’s policy has been inconsistent and hypocritical. It says that Netanyahu is ‘making a mistake’, yet it supplies weapons to Israel, saves it in international forums and does not go beyond verbal rebuke. It says further that it will not participate in the Israeli offensive against Iran but will defend Israel from Iran’s attack. Such a policy harms the prospect of negotiation. It indirectly encourages Israel, which has acted with impunity in the entire war. It also diminishes the Iranian fear of US reprisal. In other words, it creates an incentive for a limited war between Israel and Iran. The negotiations will begin if the US puts intense pressure on Israel to stop military action in Gaza, avoid escalation and allow rehabilitation to begin. Sadly, what we are witnessing is another failure of the Biden administration in the Middle East after its debacle in Afghanistan. The US will neither back out nor put enough pressure on Israel to declare a ceasefire and avoid escalation at every cost.
What role can BRICS play, especially since Iran is a member?
Iran is a new member of the BRICS. As an organisation, the BRICS has not issued any official statement on the latest escalation. However, individual members such as Russia, China, and India have requested warring parties to exercise restraint. These statements are not enough to put pressure on any state. Russia has close military and defence ties with Iran, China has strong commercial relations, and India has strong goodwill. Therefore, they are in a position to influence the outcome before it is too late. BRICS should not behave like outsiders in every war. The Ukraine war has badly impacted the BRICS economies because of the disruption of the supply chain and the price rise of essential commodities such as food, grains, and fuel. Most of India and China’s trade with Europe occurs through the Gulf of Hormuz and the Red Sea. India and China should not be the onlookers of the crisis and actively pursue the members to avoid escalation at every cost. India has additional concerns because there is a substantial Indian diaspora of about nine million workers in West Asia. An escalation of war will tremendously impact Indian economies, and it should proactively seek to bring the parties to the negotiating table. India, China and Russia can convince Iran to avoid escalation. But the question is- does BRICS have the political will to undertake such an initiative? And will the US allow BRICS to acquire such a role? I have doubts.