ISRAEL ENTRAPS IRAN IN STRATEGIC PREDICAMENT POST-LIQUIDATION OF HEZBOLLAH CHIEF NASRALLAH: IRAN'S OPTIONS?

Israel has victoriously implemented its strategic blueprint of emasculating the potent threats to Israel's security posed by Iran's two most powerful militia armies, namely Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel thus has liquidated the "Crown Jewels" of Iran's armory of Proxy Armed Militias besieging Israel for decades. 

Israel Defense Forces unprecedented for any other military forces have inflicted unsustainable losses on Iran's 'Spearheads" enabled by robust and determined political leadership pursuing a calculated strategic blueprint.

Israel's mortal blow against Iran was the killing of Hezbollah Chief Nasrallah in Beirut in his Command Center in Beirut two days ago by Israeli Air Force precision airstrikes using nearly 80 bunker-busting bombs of 5,000 pounds each.

 Pointed out persistently in my writings was that the larger strategic aim of Israel was to "Trap Iran" into a wider Middle East armed conflict with United States. Iranian President has lately also asserted Iran's concerns that it would like not to fall into Israel's "Trap Iran" plan.

 Forecasted earlier was that Israel would have no hesitation in scaling the 'Escalation Ladder' and pursue its 'Deterrence by Punishment' strategy of uprooting Hamas and Hezbollah by their very roots.

The roots lie in Teheran and Iran's other sprouts in Yemen Houthis, Iraq and Syria. Israel's next steps in escalation post-September 28, 2024, will be in these directions.

Herein lies Iran's gravest strategic dilemma. Iran by itself has no military option of direct military attacks on Israel, other than by missiles, rockets and drones. Iran's direct attacks on Israel using this option was effectively neutralized by Israel and US & Major Arab Nations interception.

Iran's 'Direct Attack' Ground Forces operations can only take place by IRGC troops using Syrian and Iraq territory. In the past, too, Israel's contingency plans were based on Iran's likelihood of use of Syrian Air Bases for refueling for attacks on Israel and for ferrying troops.

Israel is guarded against such a contingency by US Naval & Air Force deployments in East Mediterranean.  Post-September 28 US Forces deployments in East Mediterranean are being increased.

Iran by using such an option risks direct US military intervention and widening it to a US-Iran War, something in which Iran does not want to be trapped.

Contextually, can Iran afford to lose face in the Middle East and in Islamic World by displaying strategic impotence against Israel?

Iran could salvage some credibility by indulging in "Nuclear Saberrattling" but to what effect? Israel too has its Nuclear Arsenal more advanced than Iran's. 

Further, any Iranian nuclear threat would decidedly invite US & Allies military intervention to checkmate Iran's recklessness.

In terms of regional Islamic support for Iran forthcoming what needs to be stressed is that Iran is a "Strategic Loner" in the wider Middle East. It is a Non-Arab and Non -Sunni (Shia) Nation pitted against Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey.

Other than rejuvenating and restoring the paralyzed Hamas and Hezbollah crippled by Israeli military operations, Iran has no viable options, short of risking a direct US-Iran War.

Israel is well aware of the above and it is for this reason, primarily, that Israel is persisting on its air strikes all over in Lebanon on Hezbollah bases.

 Indicators exist that Israeli Ground Forces are prepared to move into Lebanon to mop-up Hezbollah strongholds pulverized by Israel Air Force strikes.

Concluding, the major observation that emerges is that Iran is in a' Catch 22' strategic predicament. Iran's military options against Israel, either way, risks Iran being trapped in a major wider US-Iran War.

ISRAEL'S STRATEGIC ESCALATION BLUEPRINT AGAINST IRAN PORTENDS A WIDER US-IRAN ARMED CONFFLICT

Israel and Iran's implacable hostility arising from Iran's strategic objective of liquidating Israel's entity as a Nation-state has been ongoing ever since 1989. What Sunni Arab Nations could not achieve singly or in unison ever since Israel was founded as Jewish Homeland in 1948, Shia Iran has donned that mantle on its shoulders trying to give it Pan-Islamic contours.

Overhanging this hostility is the geopolitical rivalries between United States and USSR in Cold War 1.o and now in Cold War 2.0 the power-play between United States & Israel versus Iran & Russia-China Axis in the wider Middle East.

In the above process of Israel-Iran confrontation, Iran has managed to create two armed militarily potent militias, the Hamas & Hezbollah, which have besieged Israel from Palestinian Gaza in the South/West and Hezbollah from Lebanon.

Lately, the Houthis in Yemen can also be added as Iran's military proxies against Israel and the United States.

Notably, even the Superpowers could not create such 'Proxy Armies' as Iran has been able to do to further its strategic aims against Israel.

Fast-forward to 1923-24, (read my post of April 2024) the Israel armed confrontation has escalated to assume strategic contours portending a wider US-Iran Armed Conflict which could have unintended consequences for global and regional security.

In my April 2024 post, it was asserted that Iran by crossing the 'Red Line' of 'Direct Attack' on Israel had "opened the floodgates of similar attacks by Israel on Iran with tacit support of United States & West".

Since April 2024, Israel has steeply climbed the escalation-ladder in retaliation for the unending attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah, in the wake of October 07, 2024, horrific attacks on Israel by Hamas. 

Israel's escalation is no longer confined to transactional military operations but there now seems to be in my estimation a well-calibrated strategic blueprint to emasculate Iranian Hamas & Hezbollah proxy armies from its very roots to achieve sustainable deterrence against Iran's proxy military militias.

The follow-up of this strategic blueprint is to trap Iran in a wider US-Iran conflict as mentioned in my April 2024 post, so that Iran's imperial Middle East regional power ambitions are neutralized.

Focusing on Israel's immediate aims the contours that emerge are (1) Liquidate Hamas both by infrastructure damage in Gaza, destruction of its war-waging capability and elimination of its top leadership in Gaza (2) Destroy Hezbollah war-waging capability and logistics bases in Lebanon and strike mortal blows on Hezbollah top political and military leadership (3) Psychological warfare in terms of inflicting 'fear psychosis' on host populations residing in Gaza& Lebanon so as to turn them against Hamas & Hezbollah (4) Operationally, after complete neutralization of Hamas & Hezbollah, Israel will then concentrate on cutting-down Houthi Threat to size.

Israel's military drives since April 2024 bear out the above contours. Israel's heavy and widespread devastation of Gaza and Southern Lebanon Hezbollah military bases are eye-openers. So is Israel's reach in Beirut, Lebanon and distant Teheran in Iran, liquidating Hamas & Hezbollah top leadership, indicative of Israel's traditional deep resolve.

Finally, Israel with successful completion of above phases would have achieved its end-aim of clipping Iran's strategic wings of posing daily potent military threats to Israel's security from Hamas & Hezbollah

military threats.

Such a process inherently carries the possibilities of Iran stepping-up 'Direct Attacks' on Israel by massed Missile Attacks reminiscent of the Iran-Iraq War 

'War of Cities' of the last Century. These Iranian missile attacks would be to slow down Israel operations against Hamas & Hezbollah.

Should Iran embark on such a reckless step, it would amount to regional escalation and Iran getting trapped into a wider US-Iran Armed Conflict.

 

Geopolitically, Israel is far too important for United States, Europe and majority of the Major Sunni Arab Nations of the Middle East.

 The same cannot be said of Russia-China Axis in support of Iran. Beyond arms supplies to Iran and its proxy armies operating against Israel, and rhetorical support, Russia and China would not risk a major conflict with US in the Middle East, where their options are limited.

 

No wonder, that both Russia and China have made protestations that Israel and Iran should exercise restraint. The underlying geopolitical reason is that both Russia and China would not' like to see the complete liquidation of Hamas & Hezbollah, since they not only tie down Israel but more importantly strategically distract United States with its 'Iron Clad" security and survival guarantees for Israel's National Survival.

Concluding, it should be apparent that Israel will now not be deterred from climbing-up on the 'Escalation Ladder' to achieve its strategic aim of complete destruction of Hamas & Hezbollah siege on Israel security which would further ensure that Iran's existential to Israel is downgraded, if not fully neutralized.

Isrrael as one noted Israel strategic analyst has asserted has added one more deterrence theory which is "Deterrence by Punishment" with overwhelming military force on its adversaries, beyond bearable limits  

    

COLD WAR 2.0 ONGOING IN INDO PACIFIC WITNESSES EASTERN NATO AND EASTERN WARSAW PACT TAKING SHAPE

Cold War1.0 which ensued in Europe in the aftermath of Post-World War II spawned the creation of Nort Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949 with United States and Western Europe Nations as its members. NATO was forged by the United States and West as collective security response against the Former USSR having established Communist Republics in East Europe.

Warsaw Pact was established five years later in 1954 by USSR and its East European Communist Satellite nations. Warsaw Pact was a matching response to NATO whose founding was attributed to West Germany joining NATO.

Cold War 1.0 lasted from 1945 to 1991when the USSR disintegrated and with East European countries shaking off Russia's yoke, the Warsaw Pact became extinct.

NATO contrastingly survives till today with a double-sized spread now resting on Russia's contracted borders. Its latest members are Sweden and Finland. 

Military rise of China and its propensity to use military force to impose its will on its peripheries in Indo Pacific raised the scepter of an enlarging and escalating "China Threat"   whose tremors are now perceptibly felt beyond Indo Pacific confines.

 NATO Security Vision 1930 takes note of "China Threat" coupling it with the "Russia Threat" to Europe--the Russia-China Axis.

In 2024, Cold War 2.0 is visibly ongoing in Indo Pacific with China as the lead player and Russia post-Ukraine War now actively integrated in collective security exercises with China.

The recent massive China-Russia Joint Military Exercise involving over reported 400 ships & Fighter Aircraft participating in vicinity of Japan was demonstrated to show-off Russia-China Axis military might in war-time scenarios.

Obviously, this Russia-China Axis military response was to counter the US-led and US-crafted bilateral, trilateral and multilateral security groupings that have emerged more sharply since China under incumbent President Xi Jinping switched Chinna's strategies from 'Soft Power' to muscular 'Hard Power', creating multiple flashpoints in Indo Pacific.

Cold War 2.0, reminiscent of Cold War 1.0 in Europe, is now in full swing in Indo Pacific in 2024 which has emerged as a highly "Bipolar Polarized Region'.

Eastern NATO was a concept which kept surfacing from late 1990s is now being actively pursued. Realistically, while Eastern NATO may have not emerged on institutional pattern of NATO, but the US-led security architecture for IndoPacific Security against the "China Threat" is all but in name an Eastern NATO.

Eastern Warsaw Pact also has taken shape in Indo Pacific in wake of Cold War 2.0 when the security linkages of Russia-China-Norh Korea are added. 

Possible candidates as future members of Eastern Warsaw Pact can be assessed as Iran and Pakistan with one or two Central Asian Republics. The China-Pakistan Axis and China-Iran 25years Comprehensive Strategic Partnership are indicators.

Major Concluding observations that need to be made are that (1) Eastern NATO and Eastern Warsaw Pact predominating Indo Pacific security environment, all but as integrated institutionalized structures, is a 'given' (2) Indo Pacific cannot escape the strategic reality of intense military confrontation spawning opposing military alliances arising from bipolar geopolitics as confrontation intensifies (3) Indo Pacific as a highly surcharged explosive bipolar confrontation region would offer no bandwidth for practitioners of neutrality, fence-sitters or multipolarity.

Cold War 1.0 would historically remain as a mere shadow comparatively against Cold War 2.0 more incendiary conflictual flashpoints.  

The "China Threat" in Cold War 2.0 is more unpredictable and potent than what was the Russian Threat to Europe in Cold War1.0.

 

UMITED STATES STRATEGICALLY INSENSITIVE POLICIES IN 2024 RENDER INDIA'S EASTERN FLANK VULNERABLE

United States policies destabilizing Bangladesh and Myanmar in closing months of 2024 betray an utter 'Strategic Insensitivity" to India's critical strategic planning and defense postures against the 'China Threat'. 

The very fundamentals of US-India Strategic Partnership based on a convergence of strategic perspectives on the 'China Threat' are perceptionally knocked-out by recent US policies moves.

US strategic naivety is ruled out, simply, because surely, the US State Department and Pentagon cannot be oblivious to geopolitical stability of Bangladesh and Myanmar for US national security needs, even if India's strategic sensitivities are overlooked in some US greater power games,

Indian policy establishment needs to question its American counterparts as to US intentions when US current moves betray a curious coincidence with China's power-play to wean away Bangladesh and Myanmar from India's natural political and economic influence.

United States constantly proclaims that India is a 'Pivotal Partner' in Indo Pacific Security. Yet, in 2024 closing months, US flawed policies on Bangladesh and Myanmar, covering India's critical flank in relation to China Threat, have rendered India vulnerable.

United States policy planners in State Department and the Pentagon cannot be so strategically naive as to not to grasp the strategic significance of Bangladesh and Myanmar to India's war-waging capabilities against the China Threat to India's Arunachal Pradesh and India's Northeastern States bordering Northern Myanmar.

Northern Bangladesh abuts deep into India creating a slender thread strip between China's massed troop concentration in Chumbi Valley, noted known as the 'Siliguri Corridor' or 'Chicken's Neck'. India's vital road and rail links traverse this slender strip.

Pro-Chinese Bangladesh can militarily collude with China to exploit Indian vulnerabilities in this marrow strip.

Further, Eastern Bangladesh adjoins a number of sensitive Indian States of Northeast. Pro-China Bangladesh could facilitate intensified Chinese -aided insurgencies against India, going on for decades. 

Northern Myanmar critically covers India's Eastern Flank from the China-India-Myanmar Trijunction right down to Southern tips of Indian States of Tripura and Mizoram.

Realistically speaking, China in event of a China-India War could "Turn the Flanks" against India by outflanking India's Arunachal Force Deployments by a forcible drive via a number of laterals available to it in Northern Myanmar. In this scenario China could exert military pressure at multiple points on Myanmar-India borders.

Contextually, therefore, United States' "Destabilization" of Bangladesh and Myanmar multiplies India's military challenges both in Arunachal Pradesh and India's Eastern Flank resting on Myanmar-India borders.

Concluding, it needs to be over-emphasized that should United States policy planners do not initiate "Course-Corrections" in their ongoing flawed policies in Bangladesh and Myanmar, detrimental to Indian security interests, then India has the right to review the very fundamentals of US-India Strategic Partnership, notwithstanding the US rhetoric.

Strategic Partnerships entail a strong component of "Strategi Trust" and taking Strategic Partners into confidence, even if US has "compulsions" to strike convergences with China. 

India's strategic sensitivities in relation to combatting China Threat can be ill-ignored by the United States in the evolving geopolitics of Indo Pacific, as it is India that adds "Strategic Ballast" for United States embedment in this conflictual expanse.

 

ASIAN SECURITY 2024: THE IMPACT OF CHINA-GENERATED MILITARY BUILDUPS OF INDIA AND JAPAN

The Asian Security environment presents a grim picture in overall terms with the over-hang of the China Threat generated military buildup arms race induced by China's territorial disputes, on land and sea, with virtually all its 14 neighbors.

India and Japan as two major Asian Powers with territorial disputes with Communist China and contending to share Asian strategic space with China, could not have escaped a military buildup race with China. 

Explosive military flashpoints abound on China's peripheries extending from the Korean Peninsula, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam and India's Himalayan Borders with China Occupied Tibet.

Asia's maritime expanses extending from Western Pacific, South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, have emerged as confrontation expanses because of China's conflicting claims of sovereignty.

In its wake, to withstand China's belligerent political and military coercive strategies India and Japan, are engaged in a feverish buildup of their military and operational logistics capabilities.

The military buildups of India and Japan impact the overall geopolitical and strategic environment of Asian security with particular reference to Indo Pacific security.

 India and Japan not only add military ballast to the overall US-led security architecture crafted to impose deterrence on China's aggressive impulses but also as Asian Major Powers reinforce the impression that China is not confronted only by external Powers to the Region. 

Perspectives generated by India as a Strategic Partner of USA, and Japan as US Ally,, in relation to the widely perceived China need to be examined as follows: (1) Cold War 2.0 polarization (2) Salience of United States 'Countervailing Power' against China Threat (3) Diminution of China's asymmetrical military predominance over India and Japan (4) Nuclear Weaponization of Japan and South Korea (5) Overall Balance of Power, and (6)Eastern NATO possibility ?

Cold War 2.0 in effect has seamlessly emerged from Cold War 1.o in Indo Pacific with the China Threat replacing the erstwhile Soviet Threat. In 2024, Asian security is marked by intense geopolitical and military polarization with China opposing United States, US Allies and US, 'Stategic Partners'.

Cold War 2.0 in Indo Pacific is more intense than Cold War 1,0 which was Europe-centric. Conflictual flashpoints generated by China are more incendiary and could ignite with unintended consequences.

Salience of United States as "Countervailing Power" against the China Threat has perceptively increased.  Since India and Japan, by themselves could not ward off China's demonstrated aggressive provocations, reliance on United States is strategically logical.

The United States, conversely, has been actively assisting the military buildups of India and Japan, to impose deterrence on China till US military power comes into play. This arises from a dawning realization in United States that China can be confronted only with support by India and Japan.

Military buildup programs of India and Japan, ongoing and in the pipeline, will greatly off-set China's so far asymmetrical military preponderance over these two Asian Powers. 

The 'unsettling effect' of the above is visibly evident when China protests that United States is leading a 'China Containment Strategy' using India and Japan. 

The significant point to note here is that in tandem with their own military buildups, both India and Japan are engaged in military capacity buildups of smaller nations like Philippines and Vietnam, facing Chinese aggression.

Possible nuclear weaponization of Japan and South Korea, so far, has been dissuaded by the United States arising from its earlier China-policy formulations marked by over- sensitivity to Chinese strategic concerns.

With the Russia-China Axis in play in Indo Pacific, with North Korea in tow, (All Nuclear Weapons Powers), the nuclear weapons imbalance could prompt Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear deterrence against the regional nuclear threat.

The 'Overall Military Balance of Power' against China and the manifested China Threat in 2024, rests largely with the United States, buttressed by India's and Japan's sizeable military buildups.

The 'Eastern NATO' precept against the persistent China Threat has gained currency lately with China's persistent belligerence showing no signs of abating.

 India seems to be reluctant to join such military alliances. Presumably, a hangover of Nehruvian Nonalignment policies.

 Japan already has in place strong institutional links with NATO for regular consultations and coordination. Japan is a regular invitee for NATO Summits.

India may shrink from Eastern NATO appellations, but the strategic reality is, that India in 2024, is strongly enmeshed in US security mechanisms and strategic partnerships with US and NATO Nations who are increasingly turning their gaze to Indo Pacific. This is necessitated by China now being perceived as a threat in NATO formulations too.

In China's perceptions, there is already an Eastern NATO in operation with India and Japan as leading Asian Powers being pivotal Powers in United States' Indo Pacific strategy.

Concluding, the brief sketch of the perspectives generated by accelerated military buildups of India and Japan, generated by the unabated China Threat, indicate a significant impact on China. China in 2024 is rattled with these two military buildups ranged against it. 

Consequently, in Indo Pacific Region, India and Japan are no longer perceived as 'Reluctant Powers' to confront the China Threat. In a sense military buildups by India and Japan are 'Game Changers' in the overall power tussle in Asia.