Analysis: Iran's cross-border presence in the Middle East is nothing new, but it has taken on increased significance in light of current events
Armed conflicts in the Middle East are not new. Many have roots that run deep in history, if one considers that the instrumentalisation of cultural and religious diversity by European colonialism still structures today's tensions. But since October 7th, we have been witnessing an acceleration of military interventions by various actors, both state and non-state, and theatres of war have multiplied and aggravated.
Iran is among these and is engaged in various contexts, including Yemen, Syria and Iraq. A few weeks ago, Iran was attacked by the Islamic State in a series of explosions that costed the life of nearly a hundred civilians. This event exacerbated Tehran's sense of insecurity, pushing it towards greater interventionism.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ One's Six One News, Iran warns that the scale of war in Gaza could lead to an expansion of the war in the area
US and British attacks against the Iran-supported Houthis in retaliation for their actions in the Red Sea have been accompanied by the alleged Israeli-targeted killings in Syria and Lebanon of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (or Pasdaran) commanders. Renewed military activism by separatists in south-eastern Iran has prompted an Iranian military response to Pakistan. Lebanon and Iraq also suffer a situation of great instability, paralleled by the increasing instability of the whole region. Are we witnessing the start of a large-scale conflict - and what role does Iran play in this context?
Iranian cross-border presence is nothing new. Since before 1979, Iran has intervened in contexts of war and conflict by creating alliances with non-state actors and avoiding classic war scenarios, or "boots on the ground" as they would say in Washington.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland, Saeed Shah, Pakistan Correspondent for the Wall Street Journal in Islamabad, on exchange of strikes between Iran and Pakistan
The effective but limited presence of elite troops - such as the Al Quds forces, led by General Qasem Soleimani until his killing in 2020 in a US air strike and currently present - engaged in unconventional warfare techniques in the countries mentioned above should be seen as Tehran’s need for security. With tactics more similar to insurgency than a classic tanks and trenches war, Iran intends to build and consolidate its retaliation capacity, which can be mobilised when deemed necessary.
Even in cases where Iran has directly struck at targets (as in Iraq, Syria and Pakistan), the offensive is not that of a land invasion. Instead, it appears to be to discourage any military actions directed against the sovereign Iranian territory through smaller, targeted actions. These are often unconventional, carried out by non-state actors who have Iranian support and operate outside Iran's national borders.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland in 2020, Bel Trew, Middle East Correspondent for the Independent discusses the killing of Major-General Qasem
These are strategies that are in line with the history of Iranian foreign policy and interventionism and precede the 1979 Islamic revolution. They are rooted in the Cold War and the role Iran played in it, as well as in the traumatic experience of the "classic" war with Iraq during the 1980s.
From this point of view, the Iranian presence and operations in the region, while dangerous, are not what may lead to a large-scale war, but the Israel-Gaza was is. Over the past few months, this conflict has created ripple effects across the region. The attacks and tensions in the Red Sea, at the border between Iran and Pakistan and in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria are all the result of a spiral of insecurity created by continued Israeli military violence in Gaza and, to a lesser extent, the West Bank.
From DW News, supporters of Mohammad Boroghani and Mohammad Ghobadlu, who were found guilty of setting buildings on fire and attacking police during anti-government protests, say their trials were a sham
These have been tough times for Iranians too. The execution of 23 year old Mohammad Ghobadloo took place last week. He was sentenced to death for his participation in the Woman Life Freedom protests, and his trial was branded a farce by international human rights organisations.
For months now, state repression has been brutally targeting Iranian civil society, in particular ethnic minorities. Those in Iran who are mobilised in favour of democracy and rights suffer from the strong securitisation of public space, something which those in government say is necessary because of the extreme volatility of regional politics and the continuous risk of external attacks. We know that security risks, whether real or propaganda-based, always cause a restriction of the space for political participation and democratic politics. Another reason why a permanent ceasefire in Gaza is necessary for all and can no longer be postponed.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
