Congratulations to Brigadier General Nasirzadeh on being appointed as the Minister of Defense of the Islamic Republic of #Iran. As a former #Tomcat pilot, his experience and leadership are invaluable assets to the nation. Wishing him continued success in his new role. - M.S.A.I.

In a software simulation, Iran's coastal artillery around the strait of hormuz fires at the attacking fleet at the same time, and the mentioned fleet responds with all its power (which practically does not have such a power abroad). Missiles such as SM-3 and SM-6 or even SM-2s or CAMM have no declared ability to destroy artillery rockets. But in this simulation, it is assumed that such capability exists at its maximum and they must defend the aircraft carrier directly in the center of the formation.

Technology is the undisputed ruler of war in the oceans. But when we get close to the coast, the geographical realities leave a tremendous impact, especially in a place like the Strait of Hormuz. Iran obtains a very high capability in its coastal waters due to the benefit of long-range rocket artillery against a sea invader in the Strait of Hormuz. the Strait of Hormuz Due to the shallow depth and the size and number of passing ships, has two official entry and exit corridors, the north of which is the entrance and internal waters of Iran, and the exit is from the south and the internal waters of Oman. Therefore, every ship entering the Strait of Hormuz is obliged to be under Iran's supervision and show a "harmless" passage in accordance with international laws.

Do you think Iran should sell Fat'h and Ababil missiles to Russia for use in Ukraine? Of course not... But #Kursk , is Russian territory! #Iran #Russia #Ukraine #Missiles #Geopolitics #KurskOperation

Conclusion
In conclusion, the conflict between Iran and Israel appears to be on a path toward inevitability. The absence of diplomatic dialogue, rooted in deep-seated ideological differences and geopolitical rivalries, leaves little room for peaceful resolution. Iran’s refusal to recognize Israel is not just a political stance but a reflection of its broader resistance to what it views as injustice and oppression in the region. In this context, war becomes the continuation of politics by other means, as Clausewitz suggested. While the prospect of such a conflict is deeply troubling, it seems increasingly likely unless a dramatic shift occurs in the political dynamics of the region.

For Iran, the nuclear issue is not just about security but also about sovereignty and national pride. The Iranian government views its nuclear program as a symbol of its technological progress and its right to develop its resources for peaceful purposes. The constant threats from Israel, including covert operations and alleged sabotage of Iranian facilities, are seen as violations of Iran’s sovereignty and further evidence of Israel’s aggressive posture.

Israel’s insistence that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear capabilities, even at the risk of war, reflects a zero-sum mentality that leaves little room for compromise. This stance not only heightens tensions but also pushes the region closer to the brink of conflict, as Iran feels increasingly compelled to assert its rights and defend its interests against what it perceives as existential threats.

Diplomatic Impasse: The Failure of Dialogue
The possibility of resolving these tensions through diplomacy appears increasingly remote. The JCPOA was a rare example of diplomatic engagement, but its fragility underscores the deep mistrust between the parties involved. Israel’s refusal to acknowledge Iran’s security concerns and Iran’s rejection of Israel’s legitimacy create a diplomatic impasse that seems insurmountable. For Iran, recognizing Israel would mean betraying its principles and the Palestinian cause, which is central to its identity as a revolutionary state. For Israel, engaging with Iran without addressing its support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas is seen as untenable.

This deadlock reinforces Clausewitz’s assertion that war becomes the continuation of politics when all other avenues are closed. In the absence of dialogue, the only means left to resolve these deep-seated tensions may be through military confrontation, a prospect that grows more likely as both nations continue to prepare for the worst.

Toward an Inevitable Conflict
Given the current trajectory, a military clash between Iran and Israel seems increasingly unavoidable. The ongoing proxy conflicts, covert operations, and mutual threats create a highly unstable environment where any miscalculation could spark a full-scale war. Whether it be an Israeli preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities or a retaliatory attack by Iran on Israeli targets, the potential for escalation is ever-present.

Iran, for its part, is unlikely to back down in the face of Israeli aggression. Instead, it is likely to continue strengthening its defenses and its network of regional allies to ensure that any conflict with Israel is as costly as possible for its adversaries. This strategy of deterrence, rooted in a belief in the righteousness of its cause, suggests that Iran is prepared to endure great hardship to resist what it sees as Israeli and Western hegemony in the region.

Global Consequences: A Conflict with Far-Reaching Implications
The consequences of an Iran-Israel war would extend far beyond the two nations. Such a conflict could destabilize the entire Middle East, disrupt global oil supplies, and trigger a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions. The involvement of global powers like the United States, Russia, and possibly China could further complicate the situation, turning a regional conflict into a broader international confrontation.

Moreover, the ideological dimensions of the conflict, particularly Iran’s framing of the struggle as a defense of Muslim lands against Zionist aggression, could inflame tensions across the Muslim world. This could lead to increased radicalization and violence, further destabilizing the region and beyond. The international community, particularly the United States and Europe, would face immense pressure to intervene, either to prevent the conflict or to manage its aftermath.

The Inevitable Clash: Iran and Israel on a Collision Course
"War is the continuation of politics by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz

Clausewitz's enduring insight into the nature of war as an extension of politics underscores the tragedy of the Iran-Israel conflict. When diplomatic avenues are closed or rendered impossible, conflict becomes the ultimate expression of unresolved political tensions. In the case of Iran and Israel, the absence of dialogue and the deep-rooted hostility between the two nations make the prospect of war increasingly unavoidable. Iran’s steadfast refusal to recognize Israel as a legitimate state reflects its opposition to what it views as an unjust and illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, effectively foreclosing any possibility of diplomatic resolution. This ideological and geopolitical deadlock makes the escalation toward military conflict ever more likely.

The Historical Context: A Legacy of Resistance
The enmity between Iran and Israel is not simply a matter of contemporary politics but is deeply embedded in historical and ideological contexts. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 was a watershed moment that redefined Iran’s foreign policy and its stance toward Israel. The revolution, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, was not merely a rejection of Western influence but also a repudiation of the existing Middle Eastern order, which included Israel as a key player. Khomeini’s framing of Israel as the “Zionist entity” and a “cancerous tumor” in the region reflected a broader rejection of colonialism and imperialism, which many in the Muslim world associated with the establishment of Israel.

Iran’s unwavering support for the Palestinian cause and its alignment with anti-Israeli movements such as Hezbollah and Hamas are rooted in this historical context. For Iran, the struggle against Israel is not just a geopolitical conflict but a moral and ideological battle against oppression and injustice. This has led to Iran's active involvement in supporting resistance movements across the region, viewing them as legitimate struggles for liberation rather than mere terrorism, as Israel and its allies often portray them.

Geopolitical Realities: Iran’s Strategic Calculations
From a geopolitical perspective, Iran’s opposition to Israel is also shaped by its strategic considerations in the region. Iran’s influence extends across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, forming what is often referred to as the “Axis of Resistance.” This network of alliances and proxy forces is seen by Tehran as essential to countering Israeli and Western influence in the region. Israel, on the other hand, views Iran’s growing presence in Syria and its support for groups like Hezbollah as direct threats to its security, exacerbating the already volatile situation.

However, from Iran’s perspective, these actions are defensive rather than offensive. Iran perceives itself as surrounded by hostile forces, including U.S. military bases and Israel’s nuclear arsenal. The expansion of Israeli influence through the Abraham Accords and its military partnerships with Sunni Arab states further heightens Iran’s sense of encirclement. Iran’s military presence in Syria and its support for Hezbollah are seen as necessary measures to protect its interests and ensure that it is not isolated or overwhelmed by its adversaries.

The Nuclear Issue: A Matter of Sovereignty
The most contentious and potentially explosive issue between Iran and Israel is the nuclear question. Israel has long accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, despite Tehran’s consistent claims that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was an attempt to address these concerns through diplomacy, but its effectiveness has been undermined by Israel’s opposition and the subsequent U.S. withdrawal under the Trump administration.