Can Trump say "No. to Netanyahu?
Israel calls for American intervention
Commercial Summary: Neither Israel nor Iran have a pathway to victory. Iran has no interest in escalation that draws in the USA. Israel has failed to pursue a decapitation strategy. Israel is doing all it can to draw the USA into the war, without whose intervention the war can continue indefinitely.
On 14 June, Israel asked for direct American military intervention in the war against Iran.
Israel’s actions are intended to make this more likely: by targeting Iranian nuclear sites, and risking massive radiation contamination, it is pushing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. And it has begun attacking Iranian energy infrastructure, in a bid to push Iran into targeting energy infrastructure in the region as a form of retaliation. Iran has suspended all IAEA inspections, meaning that the ability to detect a push towards nuclear breakout is reduced.
Although Israel conducted a spectacular decapitation strike against Iran’s army and Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), it has not followed it up with further attacks on the leadership. This suggests that, unlike the case of Hezbollah, which we assumed would be replicated, and where Israel repeatedly knocked out senior commanders, Israel is unable to paralyse Iranian command and control. Nor is there any certainty that it can kill Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ali Khamenei or his successor(s). As such, the Iranian regime can survive. In Hezbollah’s case, Israel killed a wide number of second and third tier commanders, before going after the top echelon. This time, it seems that the decapitation strike was a one-off with no ability to follow through.
Iran has engaged in repeated missile strikes against Israel. These involved hypersonic missiles that Israeli air defence was largely helpless against. Meanwhile, there are reports of Chinese flights into Iran, likely seeking to replenish Iranian air defence capabilities.
Iran
Iran’s difficulties are as follows:
It cannot replace lost infrastructure, such as the South Pars energy assets destroyed by Israel, given the currency situation and the possible loss of energy revenues.
Iran has not identified the leaks in its own military and nuclear programmes, leaving it vulnerable to further very effective decapitation strikes.
Iranian ports are highly vulnerable to a naval blockade by the USA and to Israeli airstrikes, limiting Iran ability to trade and risking economic collapse. We note, however, that Russia has failed in knocking out Ukraine’s port of Odessa and rendering it completely inoperable.
Ethnic minorities, such as the Arabs, Kurds, Baloch or Azeris, may turn on the Islamic Republic if they sense it is weakened. This is a serious concern given the American presence in Iraq (close to the Kurds and Arabs) and Azerbaijan’s proximity to the Iranian Azeri population.
Iran’s industrial and civilian infrastructure base is highly vulnerable to Israeli airstrikes, which can knock out parts of it and limit Iran’s ability to replace its drones and ballistic missiles. Again, we note that, while Russia has knocked out large parts of Ukraine’s power and industrial assets, a full knockout has not been delivered.
Iranian air defence is highly inadequate, with Israel successfully overflying Tehran in the second day of the war. This compounds all the previous problems.
Iran’s proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza have been defeated or severely weakened. These were a key constituent in Iran’s defensive strategy.
Iran’s advantages, on the other hand, include its massive territory, sophisticated subterranean missile storage and perhaps production bases, a large military and population, and support from Russia and China. Moreover, after the failure of the Islamic Revolution, Israel has given the Iranian regime a new raison d’etre: to defend the nation against external aggression. This in turn reduces the likelihood of internal dissent.
Israel
Initially, we assumed that Israel had pulled off another strategic masterstroke where they paralysed Iranian subterraneous missile bases and began a programme to decapitate the Iranian leadership. Rather, the Israelis seem to have bitten off far more than they can chew, in the hope of dragging the Americans into war.
Israel’s problems are as follows:
If Israel fails in toppling the Islamic Revolution regime, it would certainly build a nuclear weapon to establish deterrence against Israel. And Israel is unable to overthrow the regime on its own.
Israeli analysts are saying that Iran can still build a nuclear weapon, despite the Israeli strikes.
Israel’s strategic infrastructure, including power plants, desalination plants, and military industry, are limited in number and are highly clustered. One strike seems to have knocked out power in Haifa.
Israeli air defence, while better than Iran’s, remains extremely vulnerable to Iranian hypersonic missiles, which have proven their effectiveness and their ability to penetrate air defence.
The Israeli population has very low casualty tolerance. Iran has proven that it can inflict some casualties and destroy some critical assets.
Western public support for Israel is at an all time low, due to the actions in Gaza. Israeli statements about civilian casualties due to Iran’s retaliation are proving particularly jarring.
Israel’s military costs are much higher than Iran’s. An interceptor is far more expensive than an Iranian missile.
The production lines for Iranian missiles, and perhaps from Russian or Chinese-made replacements, are far more efficient than Western production lines for interceptors, as seen in Ukraine.
Israel’s advantages include unlimited Western support - even if the Americans do not formally join the war, they are helping defend Israel against Iranian retaliation, as are the French and the British. The Pentagon is fully involved in Israel’s military decision making at every level. Even the Germans are providing refuelling for Israel. Moreover, Israel’s technological edge and espionage edge are both unrivalled.
USA
For the USA, the issues are as follows:
Trump’s economic plans depend in part on receiving massive capital injections promised to him by Gulf Arab states during his visit.
These states do not want an American war with Iran, as their own energy infrastructure would be at risk.
If there is a war that affects their territories, these injections would be gone, and the American position in the region would be weakened dramatically.
These states need a strong Iran as a counterbalance to an expansionist Turkey.
Trump’s America First/MAGA base absolutely does not want another Middle Eastern war fought for the sake of Israel.
The American intelligence community had been saying that Iran is NOT pursuing a nuclear weapon, meaning that the case for war is weak.
The USA’s current priority is China, and getting bogged down in an expensive Middle Eastern proxy war with China, while also fighting one with Russia in Ukraine, makes Asia much more vulnerable to China.
The Americans are facing a sovereignty crisis:
The White House is briefing that it was not involved in the decision to strike Iran. Indeed, Trump was repeatedly publicly stating that he was trying to prevent Israel from striking Iran. Trump’s campaign was in large part based on avoiding Middle Eastern wars.
The Israelis are briefing that this was part of a great deception plan, and that the White House authorised the war.
We are unsure what to believe. It appears that the Pentagon and the Israelis went ahead and imposed this conflict on Trump, or that he was forced to acquiescing to a policy he explicitly opposed.
This reduces Trump’s authority and support for entering the war, given the sheer extent of opposition to it from his base.
Commercial Impact:
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Modad Geopolitics to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.