Will Iran go nuclear?
There is a 50% chance that this war result in Iran declaring that it has nuclear weapons and attempting to impose an energy embargo on the West.
In this report, I attempt to take seriously the declared intentions of Hizbullah and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and to match those with their capabilities. This is a scenario piece, not a prediction. I believe, however, that it accurately reflects the intentions and capabilities of Iran and its allies in the Resistance Axis. That said, I do not know if this scenario will come to pass, and so I give it a 50% chance of materialising.
Key Judgement
The Iran-led Resistance Axis, through its member, Hamas, has launched an existential war against Israel, possibly with the aim of expelling the US from the GCC and the Levant. The initial step in this attack is to have Hamas tie Israel down internally, through uprisings by Palestinians in the West Bank (1967 territories) and within Israel’s internationally recognised borders (1948 territories), and through forcing Israel to enter a destructive ground war in Gaza. The Gaza ground war will take several weeks if not months. Israel will suffer severe economic damage as well as very high casualties in personnel and materiel. There is a 50% chance that this war remains limited, with Hizbullah and its allies providing symbolic support to Hamas, while fighting remains contained within Gaza, the West Bank and 1948 territories. But even this limited conflict would cause extensive economic damage to Israel, as its young male population would be mobilised for at least six weeks, and as the cost of war would be far higher than any preceding conflict since 1973.
There is a 50% chance that Hizbullah, along with the non-state members of the Resistance Axis (Iraqi Shia militias, Syrian militias, and Yemen’s Ansar Allah or Houthi Movement) would enter this war. These forces would launch a steady stream of long-range rockets, drones and cruise missiles at Israel aimed at striking key infrastructure and military facilities. I had discussed this scenario in detail, here. Power plants, ports, airports, industrial assets, fuel storage and chemicals facilities would be hit. The Houthi would conduct regular attacks against Israeli shipping. This would force Israel into a drawn-out war against Hizbullah and Hamas and push it to request ever greater American support.
Reach out on LinkedIn to find out about Modad Geopolitics’ services or to request a free briefing.
The entry of the Resistance Axis’ non-state actors would raise the risk of the US entering the war. Iran would respond to that by disrupting energy shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, either directly or through Ansar Allah. Iran would use a combination of deniable physical attacks and cyber attacks, and would use the threat of strikes by Ansar Allah to force Gulf countries to also restrict their energy supplies to the West. This would generate an energy crisis and a subsequent economic crisis. If the West attempts to force the waterways open or to attack Iran, Iran would be likely to target energy infrastructure in the GCC with high precision rockets, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and cruise missiles. Iran would likely choose such a moment to declare that it is in possession of nuclear weapons.
Resistance Axis’ thinking
Iran’s objective is to expel US influence from its near abroad. This area includes the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, and Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. Iran declared this objective after the killing of Qassem Soleimani, and it has been repeated through organs of the Resistance Axis (Hizbullah, Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Units, Syrian militias and government forces, and the Ansar Allah Movement, also known as the Houthi Movement).
Hamas is too dependent on Iran to have launched an operation of this magnitude without full Iranian backing. As such, Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s statement denying Iranian involvement is nonsense. Similarly, Hamas’ military commander, Mohammad al-Daif, would not have called for support from the Resistance Axis if he did not think that this support was forthcoming. Hamas almost certainly has assurances that Hizbullah and the rest of the Resistance Axis (Iran, Hizbullah and Iraqi, Syrian and Yemeni militias) would join the war on its side under certain conditions, including Hamas suffering unacceptable casualties, or Israel appearing on the brink of defeat.
“Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s statement denying Iranian involvement is nonsense.”
Hamas, Iran and the rest of the Resistance Axis believe that they can destroy the state of Israel by making Jews feel unsafe, through repeated random attacks, and by wrecking the Israeli economy, preventing Israel from functioning as a modern state.
The logic behind this round of attacks is to highlight Israel’s inability to defend its Jewish citizens and drive them to leave. To this end, Hamas has called on all Palestinians to attack Jews with any means available, and it appears multiple attackers have heeded this call. In the last 48 hours, Palestinians have conducted attacks within Israel’s internationally recognised borders (1948 territories) and in territories recognised as occupied under international law (1967 territories).
The Resistance Axis, led by Iran, likely believes that such attacks, combined with missile strikes against desalination, power, aviation, port, and industrial infrastructure, would lead to economic collapse and make Israel no longer viable as a stable modern state. The Resistance Axis believes that this would create a crisis within Israel, gradually driving out its Jewish citizens, and weakening the state’s ability to fight future rounds of conflict.
As such, this attack is unlike any other, in that it is not aimed at a political objective or a response to an Israeli provocation. Rather, it appears to be the opening salvo in an existential war to end the state of Israel.
“[This attack] appears to be the opening salvo in an existential war to end the state of Israel”.
Iranian drones and missiles have shown that they are effective even when challenged by American and Western air defence systems, as we have seen in Ukraine, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. As such, they can be used effectively against Israel. Moreover, Iran would not have supplied Ansar Allah and Russia with such systems if it did not have an abundant stockpile, given its constant concern about a US or Israeli attack.
The Resistance Axis believes, in our view, correctly, that Israel’s small population size and lack of strategic depth mean that it cannot indefinitely dominate 6 million Muslims in Israel proper, the West Bank and Gaza, who are backed by the world’s Muslim community. At heart, this is a religious conflict.
Due to Israel’s lack of strategic depth, it has consistently needed to end wars decisively rather than fight attrition conflicts. The Resistance Axis aims to change that by forcing Israel into a long war of attrition, first in Gaza. The Axis believes that it can outlast Israel, and that Israel cannot maintain its economy if it fights for several months, whereas, economically, Gaza and Lebanon have little to lose.
Therefore, the objective of Hamas and its allies is to stretch the war for as long as possible, and Hizbullah may join it to help achieve that. This would help deplete Israel of manpower, especially if uprisings in the West Bank and in 1948 territories expand or recur.
Hamas and Hizbullah’s preferred tactic has been to conduct attacks, fight a conflict, survive and then rebuild with greater capabilities than those that they had when the conflict started. This dynamic is likely to keep repeating as long as the Islamic revolutionary regime in Iran remains intact. Thus, even defeat for Hamas and Hizbullah is an acceptable cost, as it is seen as temporary. This makes them more willing to take risks.
Hizbullah has said that the next war that it is involved in against Israel will lead to Israel’s destruction. With Iran’s ideological, material and financial support, it has been building up its capabilities to enter such a war since 2006. Given that it has the capabilities and the intent, we assess that there is a 50% chance that it would join the war.
Iran’s only concern is facing the US in a direct conflict. Iran believes it has its own economic nuclear option, which is to destroy the energy infrastructure of the GCC, bringing down the American and global economies. Iran has repeatedly shown that it is willing to risk a confrontation with the US, as, even if such a conflict leads to Iran’s destruction, Iran believes that that would also bring down Western power and pave the way for the rise of Islam.
“Iran believes it has its own economic nuclear option, which is to destroy the energy infrastructure of the GCC, bringing down the American and global economies”.
Iran tends to avoid making very large gambles suddenly and placing all its bets on one outcome. It tends to prefer gradual escalation, reaching the brink of war and stopping short of actual war. Therefore, Iran will wield energy as a weapon, but gradually. As such, Iran will attempt to slowly strangle energy markets through an informal embargo, which would include deniable attacks on shipping and infrastructure, combined with political pressure and the threat of military force to have Gulf states take measures that disrupt the energy market, such as production cuts and price hikes.
Iran likely has access to the technology needed to build nuclear weapons. It is very likely that during prolonged conflict in the Middle East, it would choose to either build a nuclear weapon or declare that it already has one.
“…during prolonged conflict in the Middle East, [Iran] would choose to either build a nuclear weapon or declare that it already has one”.
Iran has regularly announced advancements in its anti-ship missile technology. It has almost certainly deployed anti-ship missiles to Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen and Syria. It would use those in any conflict with the US to close off the US’ access to chokepoints such as Bab al-Mandab and the Suez Canal.
As part of a broader attempt to expel the US from the region, Iran’s allies are likely to take Western hostages in Iraq to use as bargaining chips.
In this analysis, we have taken seriously Hizbullah and Iran’s declared intent to destroy Israel and to expel the US and its allies from West Asia. We have taken seriously their military capabilities, which have been demonstrated in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. We have tried to match the statements made by the Resistance Axis with their demonstrated capabilities to predict their future actions. That is why we believe that there is a 50% chance that escalation as described above would occur.
Impacts of the war
Israel: As things stand, and without further escalation from Hizbullah or Iran’s other allies, Israel will likely face several months of steady rocket fire, though the rate of fire at Tel Aviv may reduce with time if Israel makes some successes in its air campaign, which is likely, and if Hizbullah stays out of the conflict, which is a 50% possibility. Should Hizbullah enter the war, the damage to Israel’s infrastructure, including especially aviation, ports, desalination, electricity grid, fuel storage, chemicals facilities and industrial assets, will be extensive and existential. Please see the below piece for details
Reach out on LinkedIn to find out about Modad Geopolitics’ services or to request a free briefing.
Gaza Strip: Gaza will be obliterated by the coming air campaign. However, most Hamas facilities are underground, and its commanders are in hiding. Gaza will face an extensive disaster, as Israel is likely to tighten the blockade much further in an attempt at expelling Gazans from the Strip.
Lebanon: If Hizbullah enters the war, Lebanon’s ports, airports, electricity stations, roads, bridges, warehouses, and industrial facilities will be destroyed. Lebanon will likely slide into chaos, as Israel would likely also destroy the Lebanese Army’s warfighting capability, in a bid to force Hizbullah to focus on internal affairs.
This war also carries a significant possibility of Iran and the United States getting drawn in, including into a direct confrontation. The US would enter the war if there was a significant chance of Israel being decisively defeated, e.g., if Hizbullah entered northern Israel, managed to reach the Sea of Galilee and allowed Syrian soldiers to enter the Golan Heights, which could then be used to develop attacks into all of Israel. At this stage, the US would enter the war. Please see the piece below for more detailed implications.
Iran would likely respond to US intervention by slowly closing the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab Strait to energy shipping. It would threaten Gulf Arab states with attacks from Yemen if they failed to comply, and would engage in other forms of deniable attacks against shipping and infrastructure to slow the flow of energy to global markets. This may force the US into attacking Iran, which Iran would likely use as a pretext to attack Gulf Arab states and their energy infrastructure. If Iran intends to go down this path, it will likely develop a nuclear weapon beforehand, and declare its presence through a nuclear test. Iran believes that the West is on the verge of an existential crisis, and that an economic crisis would accelerate the end of the West’s global influence. To achieve that end, it is willing to take daunting risks.