West Asia Crisis Lessons from Israel-Iran conflict ETv Bharat 23 Jun 2025 Maj Gen Harsha Kakar
https://www.etvbharat.com/en/!opinion/lessons-from-israel-iran-conflict-enn25062304369
West Asia Crisis: Lessons from Israel-Iran conflict ETv Bharat 23 Jun 2025
Israel’s Operation Rising Lion was responded to by Iran with Operation True Promise 3. Attacks by both sides continue, one dominated by air power and the other by missiles, both their core strengths. Destruction of infrastructure and civilian casualties continue. Israel, which fired the first salvo, has been unable to achieve its objectives of ending or slowing down Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Iran on its part had promised ‘revenge,’ which it continues to do by missile strikes.
Iran is amongst the most sanctioned regimes on earth, with few allies, while Israel, despite its continued assault on Gaza resulting in thousands of deaths, is supported, armed and backed by the US. All on the belief that it must have the wherewithal to safeguard itself against ‘perceived’ enemies. It is a major US ally, maintaining power balance in the region. Operation Rising Lion had tacit US approval.
The conflict, even though ongoing, throws up a collection of lessons, many of which concern India.
Firstly, a nation’s close allies depend on its ability to influence domestic politics in the target country. Israeli backers including American Jews play a major role in US domestic politics. Further, Tel Aviv generally acts with Washington’s blessings. Thus, US support for Israel always remains. Israel terms Trump as the ‘most supportive US President.’ The US entering the war against Iran highlights the same.
Iran, notwithstanding its growing proximity to China and Russia, could gain limited military but largely diplomatic support, which meant little, compared to military backing from Washington for Israel. India, despite being a strategic ally of the US, receives far less backing, as its influence in Washington is low as compared to Tel Aviv, even with Delhi hiring high-profile lobbyists in Washington. Further, Pakistan, India’s arch nemesis, also has geopolitical importance for the US, impacting support to India.
There are allies who promise military intervention under illogical circumstances, making a mockery of their support. Pakistan swore to attack Israel only if it launched nuclear weapons on Iran, something unlikely. Further, while Islamabad criticizes Israel for attacking Iran, it permits US aircraft to monitor it, exploiting its airspace, playing to both sides.
Secondly, approach of nations in a conflict will be guided by individual interests, never collective. Few members of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), pushed by Pakistan, condemned Israel. However, some amongst them destroyed Iranian missiles meant for Israel, duplicity in words and action. Many also permitted Israel to exploit their airspace. It is also possible that Pakistan may allow the US to use its air bases and air space to target Iran.
India refused to endorse the SCO statement criticizing the Israeli attack as it has close ties with both, Tel Aviv and Tehran. On the contrary, it towed a neutral path. It did the same in the Russo-Ukraine war, despite pressure from Europe and Washington.
Similarly, US and Europe sympathized with the Pahalgam terrorist incident but stopped short of blaming Pakistan for the terrorist strike. For all nations, the golden rule remains that their problems are their own, unless it impacts others. Ukraine is backed by Europe because it affects their security, but ignored by Asia, Africa.
Thirdly, success gets a boost when an out of box approach is employed. Innovative military actions take time to plan and implement. Ukraine’s Operation Spider Web and part of Israel’s Operation Rising Lion involved launching drones and missiles from within the adversary’s territory bypassing air defence systems and destroying critical assets from close range with accuracy. Another example was Israel’s pager operation against the Hezbollah.
Such operations are fraught with risk. Spider Web took a year and a half as did the Israeli’s setting up drone bases deep inside Iran. While Israel knew it would have to engage Iran’s nuclear facilities at some time, Ukraine exploited the ongoing conflict to plan and launch.
These operations can only be successful if supported by dissidents within. Israel’s MOSSAD has a strong network within Iran, while many there are many pro-Ukraine and anti-war groups within Russia. In the case of both, Iran and Russia, internal intelligence failed, thereby enabling these operations to be successfully conducted. Emphasis should remain on both, external and internal intelligence. There is a need to continuously monitor anti-national groups.
Fourthly, wars are moving from kinetic to non-kinetic with increased emphasis on long-range air strikes as also employment of missiles and drones. In addition is the fact that current and future conflicts will involve multi-domain operations. Israel targeted Iranian military leadership by falsely lulling them into believing operations are not imminent, simultaneously employed cyberattacks as also exploited its links with dissident groups within Iran alongside its airstrikes to gain initial surprise and success.
While Iran and Israel do not share borders, hence kinetic operations cannot happen, but Tel Aviv’s actions against Syria and the Hezbollah in Lebanon have also largely been air power driven, with limited incursions. Non-kinetic operations also dominated Operation Sindoor. This limits military casualties, however, increases collateral damage due to accuracy restrictions on most missiles.
Added is the growing importance of air defence and the need to suppress opponents air defence systems with commencement of operations. Israel had largely degraded Iran’s air defence capabilities in its previous strikes of Oct 2024 as also its first attack, where it employed an unprecedented 200 aircraft. India did the same prior to the launch of its ‘second wave’ of air strikes on Pakistan, as part of lessons learnt after the first strike against terrorist camps.
Fifthly, losses are part and parcel of military operations and should be accepted. In no nation, currently engaged in conflict, are opposition political parties demanding material losses be declared. It is only in India the opposition works to degrade claims of victory, solely for political gains. Maturity in politicians is visible across the world, less India.
Sixthly, no matter how modern or technologically superior the equipment, there are always chances of failure. Israel’s Iron Dome, US’s ground and ship-based Patriot Missiles as also THAD air defence systems failed to block all Iranian missiles. Some breached these systems and hit their targets resulting in civilian and military casualties. No matter how advanced air defence systems are, they can never guarantee 100% security. Victory will come with losses.
Seventhly, strategic intelligence must be accurate and wherewithal to achieve goals should exist. Israel was well aware of Iran’s nuclear sites, but still did not procure the right ammunition to cause requisite damage. It is now hoping the US will participate to help them achieve their end goals, possibly farfetched. Further, Israel’s intelligence assessment of Iran’s missile capabilities was vastly off target, resulting in it facing Iranian missile strikes daily. Indian strategic intelligence too had shortcomings in Operation Sindoor.
Eighthly, nations should concentrate on strengths and exploit enemy’s weaknesses. Israel utilized its strong airpower to maximum effect, while Iran, its missiles. Simultaneously, Israel built its air defence while degrading those if Iran, which largely helped it achieve its initial goals.
Finally, there should be an achievable end state. Israel’s claims of destroying all Iranian nuclear facilities may not be feasible on its own. Iran is seeking an end to the conflict, provided Israel stops its strikes. Iran’s initial offer for talks was rebuked by Trump stating, ‘Unconditional Surrender.’ It will now be left to European nations to find a middle path. Russia, the only nation with influence in Iran, and the one to hold all enriched Uranium produced by Iran offered to mediate but was rejected by Trump, who is desperate to seek credit for the same. Ultimately, Israel may be forced to cede to a ceasefire without achieving its objectives.
India, accepted the ceasefire offer from Pakistan only after achieving its end goal of conveying a firm message on terrorist strikes being unacceptable, as also that it can cause severe damage to Pakistan’s military assets in case it continues to persist with support to terrorism.