The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran represents a complex and multifaceted challenge with far-reaching implications. The resolution of this crisis will require careful diplomacy, strategic decision-making and a concerted effort to address underlying grievances and promote regional peace and stability in the region
By Annunthra Rangan
The “Honest Promise” operation was launched in response to the April 1 Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, which resulted in the deaths of seven Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) members. This includes two senior generals tasked with overseeing operations in Syria and Lebanon, along with six additional individuals. IRGC reiterated that the recent operation is a demonstration of its commitment to fulfilling pledges made by top leaders in Tehran, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, regarding retaliation for attacks by Israel and other adversaries.
Iranian authorities have demonstrated a measure of strategic patience following the assassination of another senior IRGC commander, Razi Mousavi, in a December 2023 Israeli airstrike in Syria, amidst the aftermath of the conflict in Gaza. The Iranian leadership appears to view inaction, limited strikes, or reliance solely on allied groups across the region as unacceptable, considering potential costs both domestically and internationally.
Israel responded to Iran’s missile and drone attacks by striking military targets in and around Isfahan, a major city which also has a nuclear facility although Iranian officials say there was very little damage and some drones were intercepted. The limited strike means both sides are showing some restraint though the region remains on edge.
On April 18, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted that the country will independently determine its course of action in response to Iran’s unprecedented attack. This statement follows UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron’s visit to Israel, during which he urged restraint. The foreign secretary stressed that Israel appears self-assured to take action in response to Iran’s attack with numerous missiles and drones, expressing hope for a measured response that minimises escalation and demonstrates both prudence and strength.
As a response to this, Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi has unequivocally stated that any Israeli incursion, no matter how minor, will elicit a substantial retaliation from Iran. Additionally, Hezbollah has asserted responsibility for launching missiles and drones targeting a military facility in northern Israel, attributing the action to retaliation for previous Israeli strikes that resulted in casualties among Hezbollah members. Iran’s attack on Israel has gained support from Hamas, with the group declaring the attack as legitimate and well-deserved.
Tehran has increasingly reiterated self-reliance, particularly in its military and economic sectors, a stance influenced by its experiences during the Iran-Iraq war, where it faced foreign-backed aggression. Despite decades of sanctions, Iran’s airforce still faces challenges, relying on ageing aircraft such as US-made F-4 and F-5 fighters, alongside Russian models like the Sukhoi and MiG. Efforts to strengthen its airforce include the development of domestically-produced jets like the Saeqeh and Kowsar, albeit not on par with top-tier counterparts like Israel’s F-35 fleet. Negotiations for the acquisition of Russian Su-35 fighters could intensify Iran’s air capabilities, yet the necessity for robust air defence systems, such as the domestically-developed Bavar-373 missile defence system, remains paramount.
It is also to be noted that despite the recent violence in Gaza, Saudi Arabia has not ruled out the possibility of normalising relations with Israel. Meanwhile, Turkey began restricting some exports to Israel after the Israeli government declined its request to airdrop aid over Gaza, where dire humanitarian conditions persist. Both Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been vocal in their criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Iran could potentially present compelling arguments at the United Nations Security Council, citing violations of the Vienna Convention due to attacks on diplomatic missions and invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter, which recognizes the inherent right of self-defence. Israel has frequently cited this right in the context of the conflict in Gaza.
Amidst escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, Iran seized control of the container ship MSC Aries near the Strait of Hormuz on April 13. The vessel, associated with Israel, was carrying 17 Indian crew members and was en route to the port of Nhava Sheva in Mumbai. The MSC Aries is now under the control of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards, raising concerns for the safety and well-being of the Indian crew members, a matter of considerable apprehension for India.
In response to the escalating crisis, India released a statement on April 14, calling for an “immediate de-escalation” and a resumption of diplomatic dialogue. The Ministry of External Affairs expressed profound concern over the heightened hostilities, emphasising the potential risk they pose to regional peace and stability. “We are deeply troubled by the increasing tensions between Israel and Iran, which present a clear threat to peace and security in the region[…] We are closely monitoring the situation as it develops, and our Embassies in the affected region are maintaining close communication with the Indian community. Given the current scenario, it is vital that the Middle East sees stability”, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar tweeted on X.
An important aspect to be noted would be the oil imports of India. The recent escalations in tensions between Iran and Israel have contributed to a surge in international oil prices, with the global benchmark Brent crude surpassing the $90-per-barrel threshold. This uptick follows production cuts by major oil-producing nations, and the heightened tensions in the Middle East are expected to further elevate prices. Speculation among oil market analysts and industry observers suggests the potential for oil prices to escalate to $100 per barrel or higher should the Iran-Israel conflict significantly disrupt oil availability through supply and transportation interruptions or potential attacks on production and processing facilities.
Although India presently abstains from importing Iranian oil due to US sanctions on Tehran, China, another major importer, continues to procure substantial volumes of Iranian crude. In the event of supply disruptions from Iran, India’s competition with China for oil from alternative suppliers, notably Russia, is anticipated to intensify. India and China currently stand as the largest purchasers of discounted Russian crude oil.
The ongoing hostilities in the Middle East are not anticipated to result in a disruption of oil supply, and it is improbable for Israel to retaliate by targeting oil production or export facilities in Iran. As of April, the Nifty 50, India’s stock market benchmark, has experienced a decline of approximately one percent, attributed to growing concerns regarding escalating geopolitical tensions. Such tensions have the potential to drive up commodity prices, dampening efforts by global central banks to contain inflation. Increased crude oil prices could lead to elevated inflation, higher interest rates, diminished corporate profitability, and strain on India’s fiscal position and overall economy. Furthermore, sustained high crude oil prices may precipitate credit rating downgrades for India. Heightened geopolitical tensions may also prompt investors to adopt a risk-averse stance, potentially resulting in capital outflows from the market, particularly given the already elevated valuations of the Indian share market.
Escalation of tensions also has the potential to disrupt global supply chains, unsettling the balance of imports and exports and placing downward pressure on the Indian rupee, possibly leading to new lows. A weakened currency could exacerbate inflation, spur further capital outflows, increase the cost of imports, and diminish profitability for domestic companies.
The message is unequivocal. Iran possesses the capability to inflict consequential damage on Israel in a one-on-one confrontation. While Israel successfully intercepted several missiles during recent conflicts, it is evident that its Iron Dome defence system could not neutralise all incoming threats.
There are valuable lessons for India to glean from these events. It is imperative that our armed forces meticulously observe, analyse and simulate various attack and defence scenarios. This underscores the critical role of top leadership, including the chief of defence staff and the defence secretary, in orchestrating strategic decisions. The responsibility for determining training priorities and procuring necessary systems cannot be delegated solely to subordinate personnel; rather, it requires decisive directives from the highest echelons of authority.
Over the span of more than a decade, Israel has engaged in a shadow war with Iran, increasingly resorting to unconventional methods to target Iranian interests. This includes sabotage of major Iranian nuclear facilities on multiple occasions, as well as the use of bombs and a satellite-controlled machine gun mounted on a pick-up truck to assassinate nuclear scientists. Additionally, Israel has employed explosive-laden quadcopters to strike military installations and has been widely attributed with orchestrating numerous large-scale cyber attacks, targeting national networks operating critical infrastructure such as ports, airports and petrol stations. While Iran has officially accused Israel of perpetrating many of these attacks, it has endured significant losses but has also adapted by enhancing its defensive capabilities in response.
According to certain reports, Israel’s expenditure on missile defence systems alone amounts to approximately USD 1.3 billion. Iran, too, would have incurred substantial costs during the recent hostilities. It is estimated that Iran launched a total of 30 Paveh cruise missiles, 180 Shahed drones, and 120 Emad MRBMs. Each Emad MRBM, comparable to India’s Agni-II in performance, carries an estimated cost of USD 4 million, while a Shahed drone costs at least USD 40,000 and a Paveh missile approximately USD 250,000. Therefore, Iran’s expenditure on these military assets would likely exceed half a billion dollars. At this point, it will further put Iran’s economy down as it already is debilitated. With sanctions from UK and USA that have been lined up to put forth on Iran, the country’s economy will further take a step down which might make Iran think to take a step down from the attacks.
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran represents a complex and multifaceted challenge with far-reaching implications. The resolution of this crisis will require careful diplomacy, strategic decision-making, and a concerted effort to address underlying grievances and promote regional peace and stability in the Middle East. Achieving resolution to this crisis is unlikely in the near future.
—The writer is a Research Officer at Chennai Centre for China Studies. Her research interests constitute China – WANA (West Asia & North Africa) relations and human rights