By Farid Mirbagheri

The recent escalation of the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has brought the region to the brink of a wider war that could engulf Lebanon, Iran and potentially other countries. Along with the rise in the intensity of rhetorical exchanges between the two sides, military action has also picked up. Intelligence sources believe that a full-scale Israeli attack on Lebanon will take place sometime in July of this year.

Despite an earlier pause in dispatching some military supplies to Israel, the White House has since decided to provide all that Israel needs for its military operations in Gaza and against Hezbollah. As far back as in last February’s Foreign Policy an article featured wherein Steven Cook referred to a war between Israel and Hezbollah as inevitable. Washington and European countries have now accepted that a full-blown confrontation between Israel and Lebanon is almost inescapable.

The question that is most pressing, however, is whether or not the Islamic Republic in Iran will directly participate in the hostilities. In the absence of nuclear weapons in Iran, Hezbollah has thus far played a somewhat deterrent role against military strikes on the Islamic Republic, i.e. any strikes on Iran could immediately trigger missile attacks on Israel by Hezbollah. Removing that deterrence – destroying Hezbollah – would open the path to engage Tehran in a direct conventional war that is viewed as an existential threat by the revolutionary establishment.

“Hezbollah is the Islamic Republic’s red line”, said Nasser Hadian, Professor of International Relations at Tehran University in a seminar last December. The UN-based Iranian mission in New York also warned two weeks ago of a broader conflict stating, “any imprudent decision by the occupying Israeli regime to save itself could plunge the region into a new war”. Therefore, the rulers in Iran will not take the prospect of the destruction of their most powerful proxy group in the region lightly.

There is thus the likelihood that Iran may be dragged into the coming war between Israel and Lebanon. Due to its outdated air force, the only effective support of the Iranian government for Hezbollah will be limited to missiles and drones, both of which can wreak havoc and horrify the Israeli populace but would not be able to change the outcome of the conflict, particularly when the strongest army in the world will expectedly rush to the aid of Tel Aviv. In military estimates such a war can only have one outcome and one winner.

Faced with domestic unrest at home and in the wake of a military setback against Israel, the Islamic Republic could probably escalate the conflict further, by widening the war to other countries, most likely Saudi Arabia. Already Hezbollah has hinted at similar directions by threatening Cyprus, a full member of the European Union. These anxious outbursts, though suggesting possible perilous repercussions of a wider war, can also indicate lack of sufficiently potent means to pursue political goals.

The Arab regional countries would prefer a peaceful solution whereby radical Islam is effectively disarmed and Iran’s access to nuclear weapons is permanently blocked. A weak and non-nuclear Iran has thus far benefitted most regional countries since 1979. Arguably that does not seem to be possible much longer as Iran is fast approaching the threshold of nuclear power. The possession of nuclear arsenal by Tehran would radically lead to changes in geo-strategic calculations and policies of regional and global players.

To prevent Iran from going nuclear, an Iran-Israel war may be an acceptable price for many regional Arab countries despite the risks to their own countries and economy. Security agreements and military contracts with Western governments and companies may have provided them with some degree of protection from missile and drone attacks.

Ultimately, given the current volatile state of world politics, there is a serious risk to global peace. The pressures do not stem only from regional conflicts, the threat of pandemics or a cyclical boom-and-bust international economy. The underlayer at a very fundamental level could be a clash of cultures that has been deemed a politically incorrect theme to discuss ever since it was propounded some thirty years ago. The wars in Ukraine and in West Asia echo some of those hostile inter-civilisational sentiments.

Lack of leadership in the West is currently a sad and conspicuous trait of international relations. A somewhat confused, inconsistent, and incoherent set of policies coming out of Western capitals have added fuel to the cultural and religious fire that is spreading globally. The discord in the West may in the end prove to be the undoing of the current international system that marks Western primacy.

Farid Mirbagheri is a Professor of International Relations and Senior Fellow at Strategy International