Could an Iranian attack trigger a world war?

An Iranian attack on Israel could worsen the conflict situation, but it is feared that this will not happen in the near future.

AP/VAHID SALEMI

Iranian soldiers march in the Armed Forces Day parade at a military base in Tehran, Iran, Wednesday (17/4/2024).

The attack Iran on Israel earlier this week shocked the world. Even though this attack did not have a fatal impact for Israel, this attack could worsen the conflict situation that is still raging. Unsurprisingly, concerns about escalation to the third world war have also strengthened in the international environment.

The world was shocked by Iran's launch of the Honest Promise Operation on Sunday (14/4/2024). In this operation, Iran launched hundreds of unmanned aircraft, ballistic missiles, and dozens of cruise missiles towards Israel. This action was supported by several countries that declared their support for Palestine, such as Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.

The impact of the attack could be considered minimal. From the hundreds of "gifts" sent by Iran, almost all of them were able to be intercepted by Israel's advanced air defense systems (Iron Dome and Arrow). Not only that, Israel is also protected by its allies' forces stationed in the Middle East region.

As an example, there are US ships in the eastern Mediterranean Sea that managed to intercept four to six Iranian ballistic missiles. Not only that, fighter jets in the area also successfully shot down dozens of Iranian unmanned aerial vehicles flying towards Israel.

Also read: US Discusses New Sanctions for Iran, Israel Hasn't Decided on Counterattack

Concerns over escalation

However, there are many who are worried about the Iranian attack. This concern is certainly not without reason. Until now, Iran still remains one of the dominant powers in the Middle East region with military and nuclear capabilities that cannot be underestimated.

However, this fear seems unlikely to materialize, at least in the near future. This conclusion can be seen from two things. The first is Iran's actions shortly after the attack was launched, and the second is the international community's response, especially Israel and its allies, to the attack.

On one hand, shortly after the attack took place, Iran stated that there would be no further attacks as long as Israel refrains from taking retaliatory action. However, Iran bluntly stated that any form of retaliatory action will be met with a more severe attack.

On the other hand, the international community is responding to Iran's action with caution. The direct attack did not prompt the US and its allies to retaliate or send troops to assist Israel. In fact, the US warned Israel not to act recklessly with retaliatory attacks and to exercise restraint.

So far, the rewards being prepared by the US and the European Union "only" amount to sanctions. Based on a report from BBC, it is most likely that the sanctions to be announced in the next few days will focus on efforts to limit Iran's nuclear program.

This means that if there is no dramatic retaliation from Israel in the near future, the tension caused by Iran's attack is likely to soon ease.

Also read: Iran attacks Israel, conflict is feared to spread

Kinetic diplomacy

Looking through Iranian lens, last week's attack is something that cannot be denied. This is because, earlier in April, Israel devastated the Iranian embassy in Syria. This Israeli attack killed dozens of people, including an Iranian general, Brigadier General Reza Zahedi.

Iran's position is constrained. On one hand, a direct attack on Iranian soil cannot be allowed. Furthermore, geopolitics in the Middle East is heavily influenced by countries' ability to create deterrence effects.

This means that unresponded actions will send a message to other dominant forces that Iran can be stepped on without resistance. Not to mention the risk of the emergence of weak perceptions of the government's response in the eyes of the Iranian people themselves.

However, on the other hand, Iran also understands the culmination of tension currently happening in Palestine. During the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, the country has been able to limit its involvement. Iran is aware that its direct involvement in the war has the potential to create escalation and deeper involvement from Israel's supporting forces such as the US and Western European countries.

Therefore, essentially, Iran is not interested in starting a war with Israel, let alone a global conflict involving other countries. With this situation, Iran must be able to give a strong warning message to Israel, while remaining cautious to avoid the possibility of the war scenario escalating.

The recent Iranian attack on Israel can be seen as a form of kinetic diplomacy. In short, kinetic diplomacy is a term used when a country uses military force to achieve a diplomatic goal. The option of kinetic diplomacy is taken when conventional methods, such as negotiation and dialogue, are not available or no longer optimal.

AFP/ROBYN BECK

Protesters displayed a banner with the words "No War" against Iran during a rally calling for a permanent ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas conflict in Los Angeles, California, United States on Monday (April 15, 2024).

Similar to the goals of conventional diplomacy, kinetic diplomacy is not intended to exacerbate conflicts, but rather the opposite. Although it involves military elements, the use of force is not in the context of destruction. Even more often, it is carried out in a very measured manner and seemingly intentionally made blunt from the outset.

Generally, kinetic diplomacy is used to create a deterrent effect and maintain the status quo. The main point is that the enemy is afraid of the message sent by a non-lethal direct attack.

In order for this goal to be achieved, the targeted enemy must be able to see how serious the danger they will face if the conflict escalates. When this message is received, the enemy will naturally restrain themselves.

This diplomatic strategy is not new. In 2017, a similar tactic was taken by the US during the Syrian conflict. In response to President Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people, the US launched airstrikes on several locations in Syria.

Similar to the recent Iranian attack, the US attack at that time was considered blunt. This was proven when Shayrat Airport, one of the US attack targets, operated shortly after the attack was launched.

In addition, the US also directly informed Russian military officials about the time and location of the upcoming attack to ensure no Russian troops were affected. This means that it is highly likely that the Syrian side also received the information long before the attack was launched.

Also read: US Sends Strategic Weapons to Bases in the Indo-Pacific

The success of kinetic diplomacy

The success parameters of attacks in the context of kinetic diplomacy cannot be equated with that of invasion. On paper, the attacks carried out by the US in 2017 and Iran in 2024 may seem trivial. However, these attacks can be considered successful as they have managed to convey a message to the targeted parties.

In the context of the United States in 2017, the attacks conveyed a message to the Syrian regime that the US would not remain silent when there are human rights violations against civilians. Additionally, the message reached Moscow, that the US had the capability to launch attacks with significant destructive power.

For allies and geopolitical partners, the attack serves as a reminder of the US commitment to international norms and its military strength that spreads throughout the world.

In the context of the Iranian attack last week, the message conveyed was quite clear, that Iran has the ability to launch long-range attacks. Although successfully intercepted, Iran's missile capability, which can reach Israeli territory, should already be a threat.

Furthermore, Iran could potentially attach nuclear warheads to similar missiles if the conflict escalates. Not only that, the Iranian government has also shown its people that they are not weak and are ready to fight if necessary.

Viewed from this perspective, it can be interpreted that Iran's attack was a success. This success could actually bring something positive, which is that Iran is unlikely to get more involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict in the near future.

Iran limiting itself will reduce the risk of other dominant powers, such as the US and Western European countries, entering Gaza directly. This means that escalation to a large-scale war is unlikely to occur, at least in the future. (R&D COMPAS)

Also read: Palestinian-Israeli Conflict Becomes Biden's Threat in the 2024 Election (II)