Iran’s North Koreanization gambit

Tehran upped the ante and scored a strategic success with its attack. Israel also achieved its outcomes. The Middle East game has become more dangerous.

A massive strategic shift in the Middle East is occurring following Iran’s decision to launch direct attacks against Israel. Charles Freeman recently argued that Iran’s assault on Israel made a significant strategic point—it clogged and overburdened Israeli defenses.

He posited that if Iran were to launch ten times more missiles and drones, it could overwhelm Israeli defenses economically, potentially rendering them unsustainable in the long term.

Moreover, Iran has demonstrated the will to pursue this strategy. Tehran is thus following Pyongyang’s footsteps. North Korea has repeatedly proven its capability and willingness to strike its “enemies.”

Up until now, Tehran had restrained itself from attacking Israel directly; however, it has now shattered that restraint.

The only crucial strategic difference between Iran and North Korea is that Iran does not possess ready-made nuclear weapons. It retains the capability to produce atomic weapons.

Israeli retaliation conveys a clear message: it can strike Iran at will and reestablishes the red line that Iran must not progress toward obtaining ready-made nuclear weapons.

Additionally, Israel has achieved something new with US support. For the first time, Saudi Arabia participated in the defense of Israel and is now integrated into an anti-Iranian coalition.

The US has united significant regional players—Egypt, Jordan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, along with the Kurds—in a collective effort against Iran.

The latest volley of Israeli missiles likely originated from Kurdish-held territories in northern Iraq or Syria. Furthermore, the