BEN MORGAN: The Iran-Israel War, US intervention and potential impacts in Ukraine

Recently, the Israel-Iran war escalated, President Trump announcing that US aircraft were involved in attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. The president spoke to the nation late on 21 June, describing the attacks as a ‘spectacular military success’ and signalling that Iran’s nuclear programme was disrupted and it was time for peace negotiations. Trump’s speech also warned Iran against retaliation, the president stating “There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater that we have witnessed over the last eight days.”

Israel’s 13 June attack on Iran started a sudden, and unexpected change in the global situation. And, the president’s recent acknowledgement of US involvement in the attacks adds a new layer of complexity, that is likely to have far-reaching impacts.

Politically, Trump is facing a backlash from both sides of the House, and from the wider public. Several American politicians already claim that authorising the attack without seeking Congressional approval is unconstitutional, and several challenges have already emerged. Further, Trump’s decision will inflame a section of his MAGA constituency that is very opposed to American involvement in foreign wars.

Internationally, the implications are even less certain but it is safe to conclude that the War in Ukraine will be impacted by events in Iran.

Israel’s surprise attack

On 13 June, Israel launched a large well-coordinated attack on Iran. Israeli missiles, drones and aircraft attacking infrastructure supporting Iran’s nuclear programme. Some of the first sites attacked included Iran’s heavy water production plant near Arak and the uranium enrichment site at Natanz. It is notable that the attacks also targeted key political and military leaders, and members of Iran’s scientific community. For example, the Republican Guard’s General Command Headquarters in Kolahduz was destroyed in the first wave of attacks.

Although Iran’s nuclear weapon programme is a long-standing security issue for both Israel and the US, the attacks appeared to surprise the White House. On Thursday 12 June, both Trump and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio made comments about negotiating with Iran. Further, after the first round of attacks Rubio announced on Twitter that the US was not involved and stated that “Israel took unilateral action against Iran.” Rubio also warned “Let me be clear: Iran should not target US interests or personnel.”

During the next week, the scale and coordination Israel’s ‘Operation Rising Lion’ became clear. Israel’s air strikes included people and it was apparent that the campaign also aimed to decapitate Iran’s military leadership. For instance, Iran’s Air Force chief, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, was killed along with his leadership team. Notably, after Iranian missiles hit Israeli cities, the Israeli Air Force attacked Iranian oil infrastructure.

Reports have emerged of Israel using infiltrated drones in a manner like Ukraine’s use of these weapons against Russia’s strategic bomber fleet. Reports like these indicate Operation Rising Lion has been carefully planned for a considerable time. And we can also be sure that Iran is under sophisticated and aggressive cyber-attack.

Israel has won a significant tactical victory, establishing complete air superiority over Iran. Currently, Israel has the freedom to attack targets anywhere in Iran, and after conducting battle damage assessments can plan new strikes without worrying about Iranian interference.

Israel’s objective

The stated objective of the Operation Rising Lion is to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. Israel believes that a nuclear armed Iran is an existential threat. Iran claims that its nuclear programme is civilian rather than military.

The reality is subject to considerable debate. For instance, speaking to Congress in March, Tulsi Gabbard US Director National Intelligence said “while Iran had an unprecedented stockpile of weapons-grade uranium, it did not appear to be building a nuclear weapon.” A position that she has recently changed.

However, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reporting from June this year highlighted concerns. On 19 June the BBC reported that the “…the alarm was raised earlier this month when the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, found Iran to be in breach of its non-proliferation obligations, for the first time in nearly 20 years. Iran has amassed around 400kg of uranium enriched to 60%, well beyond the level needed for civil nuclear purposes.” Additionally, Iran did not cooperate with the IAEA’s inspectors, and was not able to demonstrate that civilian nuclear material was not being diverted into military programmes.

On 11 June, the IAEA stated that Iran was in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that the organisation could not provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme was only civilian.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to confirm whether Iran had nuclear weapons because only a small group of people within Iran know the status of the nation’s nuclear weapon programme.

Two key targets, Natanaz and Fordo

Stopping Iran’s nuclear programme requires destruction of two key targets; the uranium enrichment sites at Natanaz, and Fordo. Recently, the BBCreported that expert opinion is that the former is “severely damaged if not destroyed altogether.” But Israel has not destroyed the other essential component of Iran’s nuclear programme, the Fordo complex. Located about 200km south of Tehran this enrichment plant is buried deep under a mountain.

The Fordo complex is built to withstand air attack with only half a dozen entrance points, and bunkers that intelligence agencies believe are 80-90 metres underground. Fordo is a very ‘hard’ target. Destroying bunkers deep underground requires highly specialised bombs, designed to be dropped from great heights with strong nose cones and walls that allow them to penetrate deep into the earth before exploding.

Israel’s air force has bunker busting bombs that can penetrate approximately 10 metres underground. The US operates a larger weapon, the GBU-57 that Jane’s defence experts believe can penetrate 18 m of concrete or 61 metres of earth. Destroying the Fordo complex was a difficult task and Israel needed US support to ensure success. And, even with US support initial reports indicate the mission required multiple attacks.

Are escalation or regime change likely?

Another objective cited in discussion is ‘regime change,’ or crippling Iran’s government infrastructure to the point at which internal opposition groups can overthrow the current regime. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has discussed regime change as a potential outcome but does not say it is a primary objective. Israel lacks the resources and experience to undertake this form of operation.

The US on the other hand, has not only the capability to undertake this type of operation but also has a proven model. The successful 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was led by a large special forces operation, that involved infiltrating soldiers into the country. The special forces soldiers linked up with local resistance groups and supported them by providing military advice, and access to US airpower. The US soldiers bringing together a powerful coalition of local forces that defeated the Taliban, opening the way for conventional US forces to enter the country.

The US Special Operations Command has enormous resources and may already be working with Israel planning a similar type of operation. But, Trump’s statement about the bombing did not discuss regime change, rather the tone of the statement indicated that he considers the attacks and US activity are over; providing Iran negotiates.

In my opinion, Iran may simply not be capable of mounting any type of retaliation because its military has been crippled by Israel’s recent air strikes and its main proxies the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas have been severely degraded by recent US and Israeli operations.

Al Jazeera provides a counter opinion, quoting Shahram Akbarzadeh, the director of the Middle East Studies Forum at Deakin University in Australia who believes there is “very real concern of regional war’’ after the attacks because “There are so many Iranian allies and proxies in the region who may not wait for an attack order from Tehran, who may take it upon themselves to hit at US assets in the region.”

However, my assessment is that Iran’s leaders know they are ‘on the backfoot,’ and are likely to bide their time rather than seek immediate confrontation. Although there may be isolated strikes against US garrisons, or shipping in the Red Sea. It seems more likely that the situation will de-escalate rather than increase in intensity. It also appears unlikely that Trump has the political capital in the US to commit the resources required for regime change – special forces soldiers deployed in Iran.

Potential impacts on the Ukraine War

Meanwhile in Ukraine the war continues, both sides air campaigns increasing in intensity while on land the campaign continues to be a large Russian ‘turning movement.’ Russia’s main effort directed towards Kostyantynivka, while it masses forces near Sumy to create a dilemma. Trying to draw Ukrainian resources away from Donetsk. Since the last post, Russia has made some small advances in Donetsk but the frontline remains stable.

The situation in Iran is going to impact on the war, and will affect both sides.

US attention and aid will reduce

It is inevitable that US attention will be diverted towards the Israel-Iran conflict, the new war providing an additional reason to reduce support for Ukraine. Already, on 10 June US Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth told Congress that his next budget would reduce support for Ukraine. Although details the details are yet to be confirmed there will be a drop-in US support.

European countries may reduce aid

If the situation escalates, it is likely that European nations will be asked to support the US. This may divert European resources and attention away from Ukraine, making it harder for Europe to support Ukraine.

Russia’s drone supply may reduce

Many Russian drones crossing the Ukrainian border are Iranian Shahed drones, as are many drones used on the frontline. The war with Iran will impact on Russia’s drone supply chain, and we should expect to see a long-term reduction in numbers.

Maintaining its Iranian drone supply is clearly important to Russia, Putin immediately offering to mediate between Israel and Iran. Later, Dimitry Peskov, the Kremlin’s media spokesperson spoke out against any attempt at regime change, clearly stating Russia’s opposition, further indicating Russia’s concern about the situation.

Regime change raises questions for Russia

Although it is unlikely, Russian planners must be considering the risk of a US enabled attempt at regime change in Iran. If the current Iranian regime collapses it is unlikely to be replaced by a pro-Russian government, threatening Russia’s drone supply and creating a new security risk on the southern shore of the Caspian Sea.

This raises an interesting question, can Russia do anything to support the current Iranian regime? Based on the recent collapse of Syria’s Assad regime, probably not. But Assad’s Syria was not as strategically important to Russia.

Conclusion

At this stage the US does not appear to have a thoughtful and well-considered strategy for Iran. Instead, it looks like it is falling into a conflict by accident. Israel’s success providing an opportunity for the US limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

A risky decision because it diverts US attention and resources away from other areas. Specifically, the Indo-Pacific and Europe, two theatres of greater strategic importance to the US than the Middle East.

The Israeli’s achieved a tactical victory by winning air-superiority over Iran. Israeli aircraft and drones are operating approximately 1,500 km from the borders of Israel. The military planning and logistics required for Israel to operate fighter planes, drones, airborne command posts and tanker aircraft this far away over hostile territory is staggering.

However, this tactical success means nothing if Israel and the US cannot establish conditions for peace. The point of success in war is to secure peace, and the attacks on Iran do not appear to be backed by a strategy to achieve this goal. Therefore, the next questions are: Whether this US intervention creates the conditions for peace? Or, if the world looking at another long and costly Middle East war?

 

 

 

 

Ben Morgan is a bored Gen Xer, a former Officer in NZDF and TDBs Military Blogger – his work is on substack