BICOM

The geostrategic equivalent of the hypothetical “irresistible force paradox” – the question of what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object – is being played in Syria between Israel and Iran.

Overnight, a combination of Shia militias and the elite Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard fired 20 Fajr-5 and Grad rockets at Israel, some of which were intercepted by the Iron Dome defence system, although most landed within Syria itself. In response, Israel carried out what an IDF spokesperson called “the broadest Israeli attack against Iranian targets”. This included 70 sites connected to the Quds Brigade and nearly all of Iran’s military infrastructure in the country, according to Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman. The Russian defence ministry said Israeli strikes on Iranian targets was carried out by 28 planes that fired at least 60 missiles, with 23 fighters reportedly killed.

This latest confrontation escalates an already a dangerous situation. It comes hot on the heels of an alleged Israeli strike on an Iranian base south of Damascus on Tuesday, missile strikes on regime military positions in northern Syria on 29 April and a strike on the T4 airbase in central Syria on 9 April. In February, an armed Iranian drone shot down in Israeli airspace, with Israel subsequently hitting Iranian assets in Syria.

Trump’s decision to renew sanctions did not cause the Iranian attack, but it may have influenced its timing. Iran had vowed revenge on Israel for the T4 airbase strike (which damaged its UAV capacity) in April, but was most likely waiting until after Trump’s decision, as well as the Lebanese elections this week, to carry it out. Revenge, after all, is a dish best served cold. Had a weapons convoy not been destroyed near Kiswah on Tuesday, the attack may well have taken place even closer to the JCPOA decision.

The main actor providing deterrence against Israel on its Northern Front is Hezbollah. The Shia Iranian-backed Shia movement possesses over 130,000 rockets, many of which are GPS guided and capable of hitting strategic sites and civilian centres across the length and breadth of Israel. This mutual deterrence between the two was demonstrated in January 2015, when five Kornet guided anti-tank missiles were fired at an IDF convoy near Ghajar and IDF positions in the area were hit with mortar shells. Two IDF soldiers were killed and five injured in what was a response to an Israeli airstrike near Quneitra the week before that killed an Iranian general, a senior Hezbollah commander and five others. While Israel subsequently responded with artillery strikes in southern Lebanon, the “cycle of violence” ended there.

As BICOM’s recent paper outlined, Hezbollah remains an integral component of Iran’s proxy strategy in the region and has been a mainstay in regime supported campaigns to regain territory in Syria. However, with the Shia group currently focused on domestic issues it seems to have (temporarily) disengaged itself from Israeli-Iranian tensions in Syria. Moreover, Iran may be keeping Hezbollah and its capacity in reserve for a potential D-Day scenario – if Israel or America were to hit Iranian nuclear sites.

Yet without Hezbollah’s firepower, Iranian military capacity in Syria seems rather feeble, and this has provided an opportunity for Israel to attempt to nip Iran’s military build-up in the bud before it reaches truly frightening levels. This approach signals a dramatic shift to Israel’s previous policy regarding enemies’ accumulating military firepower on its borders. In the decades during which Hezbollah steadily increased its vast arsenal, Israel’s policy was guided by “let the rockets rust” rather than pre-emption.

The current “war between the war,” as the IDF describe its campaign against Iran, is the inevitable result of what former head of Military Intelligence Amos Yadlin terms the “collision between two strategic vectors,” namely Iran’s resolve to establish a robust and advanced military presence in Syria versus Israel’s determination to prevent it from happening.

With neither side giving in, the long-term question revolves around whose resolve and determination will prevail. Ultimately, it is scientifically impossible for an unstoppable force to meet an immovable object.

Calev Ben-Dor is the Director of Research at BICOM.