KUALA LUMPUR - Tensions have escalated due to the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the killing of Iran-backed Hezbollah group leader Hassan Nasrallah in southern Lebanon following years of conflict between Iran and Israel.
In retaliation, Iran launched ballistic missiles on Oct 1, and Israel has vowed to respond, pushing the region to the brink of further instability and possibly toward a wider regional conflict.
In an exclusive interview with Bernama, Dr Ahmad Badri Abdullah, Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS), discussed the escalation in Gaza post-Oct 7, exploring the broader geopolitical consequences and regional dynamics.
Badri acknowledged a full-scale war between Israel and Iran could indeed lead to a wider regional conflict.
"A full-scale war would have dire humanitarian consequences, particularly in Gaza and southern Lebanon and potentially parts of Israel.
"Civilians in Gaza have already suffered from intense bombardment, such as Israel's use of 2000-pound bombs that have destroyed large buildings and displaced entire populations,” he said.
Moreover, Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon could potentially draw in regional actors like Syria and Iraq, both of which have strong ties to Iran.
Badri said that if the war were to extend, Nato would likely be pressured to intervene, particularly if Israel were to invoke the mutual defence agreement.
"Russia and China could be drawn into the conflict to protect their interests, as both have been positioning themselves as a counterbalance to US influence in the region,” he said, adding that this combination of regional alliances, economic interests, and military engagements could lead to a larger global conflict.
He also noted that the US is hesitant about Israel striking Iran and its civilian nuclear facilities, fearing such actions could provoke Iran into launching a full-scale war.
This scenario would likely compel the US to deploy ground troops in support of Israel and suggests there is a 50/50 chance of this situation escalating into a wider conflict, he added.
However, despite its aggressive stance, Israel remains hesitant to directly engage Iran without the full backing of the US and its European allies.
"Israel has focused its efforts on weakening Iran's original proxies such as Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, utilising tactics like mowing the grass, which aims to temporarily neutralize its opponents while avoiding an all-out war with Iran,” he said.
He believes Israel's approach against Hezbollah reflects its frustration with the lack of unequivocal or unconditional support from the West, particularly the US, especially following widespread global criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza.
Badri highlighted that Israel is struggling to maintain unconditional support from its most prominent ally, the US.
He noted that while the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has historically been influential in Washington, it now faces challenges in securing full US support for a potential war against Iran.
The growing differences between left-leaning movements in the US and student groups at American universities, all actively campaigning against the war in Gaza, have sparked a notable shift in American public opinion.
This change reflects a broader societal debate about the US's role in the conflict and has significant implications for the country's foreign policy, particularly regarding its support for Israel.
Meanwhile, in a separate interview with Bernama, Professor James Chin from the University of Tasmania was asked about the likelihood that Israel would use its nuclear weapon capabilities against a country such as Iran in an all-out war.
He said that Israel would not resort to using its nuclear weapons without a trigger from the US.
"The US would likely prevent this to avoid drawing in Russia and China, thus averting a nuclear war. However, a conventional war remains a distinct possibility,” he said.
According to the US-based Arms Control Association, Israel is estimated to have 90 nuclear warheads in its stockpile; however, Israel does not officially admit to having any nuclear weapons.
Chin said the US remains the most actively involved world power, siding firmly with Israel, while Russia and China, despite their interest in the conflict, have refrained from direct involvement.
"The US is tied down militarily, strategically, and diplomatically with the situation in the Middle East. Russia and China want to leave the mess to the Americans, which is why they only issue statements asking for peace but are not directly involved yet,” he said.
He noted that Russia and China’s current stance could change if the conflict escalates further, and if a full-scale war between Iran and Israel erupts, it could draw in other Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
When asked about which side would have the upper hand in a war between Israel and Iran, Chin said that the war would be about technological superiority.
"Although Israel is small compared to Iran, at present it seems that Israel has superior technology, but their technology is heavily based on weapon supplies from the US.
"So, would the US keep supplying Israel with weapons even if Israel started an all-out war with Iran?
"This is why I said the Russians and Chinese who are sitting on the sidelines are observing what the US would do,” he explained.
He compared the situation to the conflict in Ukraine, stating that if the US were to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine, it would significantly hinder Ukraine's ability to resist and likely result in Ukraine losing the war against Russia.
Chin also pointed out that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is far from new, pointing out that while social media might make it seem like a recent development, the conflict dates back to the 1970s, 1980s, and even the 1990s.
He emphasised the importance of viewing this conflict within its broader historical context. - BERNAMA