by James M Dorsey
With Iran’s Axis of Resistance in shambles, Israel and its supporters in the United States are lobbying for greater US-Israeli cooperation in targeting the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missiles and nuclear programmes.
The Israeli push comes in advance of President-elect Donald J. Trump entering the Oval Office on January 20 and in the wake of the Axis’ loss of ousted President Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, the weakening of Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah and Gaza’s Hamas, Israel’s destruction of Iranian air defences, and the US, British and Israeli targeting of Yemen’s Houthi rebels.
“With key adversaries weakened and air defense systems neutralized, Israel’s path to Iran’s nuclear facilities has never been more open,” said Iran Radar, a hardline Israeli blog that is vague about who publishes it and who its contributors are.
 Listen now · 14:29 |
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has reportedly postponed striking Iran until Mr. Trump takes office, despite pressure to act earlier by Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence service, senior military commanders, and opposition figures.
Israel this week bombed Sanaa International Airport, the Yemeni capital’s Heyzaz power station, the Ras Katib power station, the Al-Salif and Al-Hudaydah ports, and the Ras Issa Oil Facility in Al-Hudaydah province.
The attacks didn’t prevent the Houthis from launching a projectile targeting Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport in the sixth attack against Israel in nine days.
The Houthis’ repeated attacks keep Israelis uncertain about when and where the next missile launch will occur, on edge and close to their bomb shelters.
 |
Ironically, Israel and the Houthis operate on the same assumption that by hitting civilians, they will generate opposition to government policies and pressure leaders to sue for peace. It’s an assumption that has time and again proven to be mistaken.
Israel has failed to sway Palestinian, Yemeni, or Syrian public opinion with its sledgehammer military strategy. Similarly, Iranian, Palestinian, Yemeni, and Iraqi attacks have hardened rather than softened Israeli public opinion.
The best Israel can likely hope for with its retaliatory campaign would be to force the Houthis to agree to a ceasefire that is not linked to an end to the Gaza war, like the truce with Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah.
Last year, Hezbollah and the Houthis unilaterally initiated hostilities with Israel in support of Hamas following the group’s October 7 attack on Israel. Both said they would halt their attacks once Israel agreed to end the Gaza war. Hezbollah dropped its demand as part of a ceasefire agreed in November.
 |
Source: X
The closure of Israel’s Red Sea port of Eilat is the Houthis one major success. Although Israel’s anti-missile defense system prevented Houthi missiles from causing damage, the attacks have forced port authorities to halt operations.
Overall, Houthi missiles and drones have proven to be more of a nuisance than an existential threat. While Eilat suffers the economic fallout of the Houthi attacks, Israel reroutes shipping to its Mediterranean ports. Eilat accounts for a minuscule five per cent of Israeli trade.
“The Houthis are trying to suffocate Eilat and its economy. The remaining Israeli ports are absorbing shipments delivered through the Red Sea, but Eilat has unused logistics equipment and personnel,” said Eilat port Chief Executive Officer Gideon Golber.
Similarly, the Houthis’ ability to strike at shipping in vital Gulf waters is a double-edged sword. It offers the Houthis an edge other Iran-allied groups lack.
 |
Credit: Defence Intelligence Agency
Yet, if not carefully calibrated, attacking shipping could strain relations with China, which relies on Gulf oil and gas, play havoc with Iranian imports and oil exports, and endanger Iran’s rapprochement with Saudi Arabia.
As Iran comes to grips with the Israeli body blows to its Axis of Resistance, It’s Mr. Al-Assad’s fall rather than Israeli attacks against Iran and its non-state allies that sends chills down Islamic Republican spines.
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) General Mojtaba Fada accused domestic critics of “aiding the Americans” by taking the government to task for Iran’s recent geopolitical setbacks and deteriorating economy.
 |
IRGC General Mojtaba Fada. Credit: Iran International
Insisting that President Masoud Pezeshkian inherited the country’s energy crisis from his predecessor, Ebrahim Raisi, Mr. Fada warned that “some individuals within the country should avoid signaling to the Americans through their analyses.”
Mr. Fada asserted that “all citizens and officials have a duty to defend the Islamic government in the current situation. We have stood firm for 45 years for the Islamic Revolution of Iran, and we must continue to endure hardships, tolerate criticism, and bear the pain for its sake.”
Mr. Fada spoke against the backdrop of widespread social media criticism sparked by a sharp drop in the value of the Iranian riyal, falling incomes, and rolling energy blackouts.
In an effort to further insulate Iran against foreign attempts to exploit its weakening, Iranian Vice President for Strategic Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif proposed a dialogue between Muslim-majority Middle Eastern states that would craft a new regional security architecture. The emphasis on Muslim states would exclude Israel, the region’s only non-Muslim state.
”West Asia, particularly the Persian Gulf region…demands bold, visionary initiatives. I propose the establishment of a Muslim West Asian Dialogue Association (MWADA) as the mechanism to achieve this transformation. MWADA invites all core Muslim countries in West Asia –Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, (the future government of) Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen —to engage in comprehensive negotiations,” Mr. Zarif said.
An architect of the 2015 international agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear programme, Mr. Zarif said the Association would prioritise ceasefires in Gaza, Syria and Yemen as well as a regional non-aggression pact.
“The Iranian people, having endured significant sacrifices, are now prepared –with resilience and confidence –to take bold steps. This shift from a threat-centered perspective to an opportunity-driven one aligns with the vision outlined by President Pezeshkian (and myself) during last summer’s presidential campaign in Iran,” Mr. Zarif added.\
 |
Credit: Perun
The undermining of the Axis forces Iran to potentially rejigger at least two of the remaining three pillars, the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile programme, and nuclear hedging strategy.
Mr. Al-Assad’s fall, coupled with the Lebanon ceasefire agreement that obliges Hezbollah to withdraw to positions 30 klimometres north of the Lebanese-Israeli border, removes a key Iranian deterrent: the ability to threaten Israel with retaliation from just beyond the Jewish state’s borders for any Israeli attack against Iran or its allies.
At the same time, Iran’s second line of defence, its ballistic missile programme, has been similarly compromised. Israeli retaliation for two Iranian missile barrages fired at Israel in response to the Jewish state’s killing in Tehran of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh and the bombing of the Islamic Republic’s consulate in Damascus has left Iran with crippled air defences.
Worse from Iran’s perspective, is the fact that the barrages call into question whether the missile programme provides deterrence.
 |
Iran’s Ballistic missile program. Credit: AA
Fired in response to the consulate attack, Iran’s April barrage of more than 300 projectiles and drones, including up to 130 ballistic missiles, either malfunctioned or were intercepted, with only seven to nine breaking through. They caused little damage and no deaths.
Iran’s second barrage of 200 missiles, fired in October in response to Mr. Haniayeh’s killing, performed somewhat better, with more than 30 hitting targets, including Israel’s Nevatim Air Base and several residential areas.
“Iran’s efforts to restore the viability of its ballistic missile force will likely create new challenges for the United States and its allies, requiring a more integrated, risk-acceptant, and proactive approach to countering these missiles” by what influential Washington Institute for Near East Policy analysts Michael Eisenstadt and Farzin Nadimi called an “emerging U.S.-led Middle East air and missile defense partnership,” involving the United States, Israel, and unidentified others.
Messrs. Eisenstadt and Nadimi said the partnership would “become even more important if Iran acquires nuclear weapons,”
 |
Credit: The Media Line
Despite insisting that its nuclear programme was exclusively for peaceful purposes, Iran has started to publicly debate whether to weaponise it to compensate for the hollowing out of its Axis of Resistance missile defence deficiencies.
As a result, Messrs. Eisenstadt and Nadimi advocated a more aggressive approach involving “greater integration and digitization of existing air and missile defense partnerships to facilitate…preemption and forward defense to destroy, when possible, Iranian missiles on the ground and to defeat attacks during the boost, ascent, and early midcourse phases of flight.”
The analysts argued that by adopting their suggested approach, the United States and its allies (Israel) could “undermine the central pillar of Iran’s military strategy, enhance their ability to counter Tehran’s most likely means of delivering a prospective nuclear weapon, and devalue the regime’s massive investment of resources in missiles.”
No doubt, Mr. Netanyahu is betting on Messrs. Eisenstadt and Nadimi’s approach falling on sympathetic ears in a Trump administration populated by Iran hawks.
Dr. James M. Dorsey is an Adjunct Senior Fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, and the author of the syndicated column and podcast, The Turbulent World with James M. Dorsey.