'The missile is the message': How the next US President will deal with the Iran-Israel conflict

A billboard in Tehran bearing pictures of Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian (2-L), armed forces chief of staff Major General Mohammad Bagheri (L) US President Joe Biden (2-R) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R), on October 27. AFPShow less

In April and October of this year, both Iran and Israel exchanged direct fire with each other – the first two Middle Eastern states to engage in direct conflict in the 21st century. Iran fired ballistic missiles towards Israel in both months, and Israel, on both occasions retaliated with long distance air strikes.

After the Iranian missile strike towards Israel on October 1, policymakers and media analysts assessed it was a “failure” based on the lack of damage inflicted upon its targets, such as the Tel Aviv headquarters of Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence agency, or Nevatim air base, housing US-made F-35 aircraft, despite satellite imagery showing that some of the missiles did make it through.

Then, on October 26, Israel struck Iran with aircraft that launched missiles as they flew over Iraqi territory, not even entering Iranian airspace itself. While the question of how much damage was inflicted was debated for days, such analysis misses one of the points of such attacks.

A soldier inspects remains of an Iranian missile, on October 2 in Arad, Israel. Getty Images

It was media theorist Marshall McLuhan who is remembered by his oft-quoted phrase, “The Medium is the Message”. The missiles launched on October 1 and October 26 carried warheads, but they were also carrying political messages, delivering differing content to domestic audiences and international adversaries on the eve of the US elections.

If America has the ability to urge Israel to exercise any restraint, it could have done it sooner

These attacks were calibrated and choreographed to communicate strength to both these audiences, and that is far more important than their military value. The media impact of each was significant. That also helps explain why Iran chose not to retaliate further even with the death of two of its soldiers.

For example, the news of Iran’s missile launch on October 1 was communicated by all sorts of media, but the TV will be able to generate more emotions for the viewer. The images and sounds of what appeared to be clashing comets in the night sky generated a sense of sublime awe and fear that newspaper or radio could not. The message of the medium is that fear can be easily communicated to mass audiences in the TV age. Mr McLuhan was not alive to see how an Instagram story can do the same.

An Israeli audience for example might feel exhilarated by the air defence systems intercepting some of the missiles, yet at the same time realise that their ontological security, their sense of daily security, has been undermined that day and possibly in the future.

In contrast, the Iranian attack was followed up by a Hezbollah drone and missile strike on October 13 against the Israeli Golani brigade 40 miles south of the Lebanese border, killing four Israeli soldiers. The footage of the Hezbollah attack was starker, showing blood-strewn halls of where the soldiers were eating before the attacks. Such footage gave Hezbollah a victory more than a radio or newspaper report.

On the other hand, Iran sent a message to the US on the eve of the elections that despite the sanctions introduced under the administration of former president Donald Trump, Iran can still develop the technology to fire a long-distance missile, whether into outer space or over a region to reach Israel.

If Mr Trump is re-elected, he will be met with the following welcome message from Tehran: “If the sanctions you introduced were meant to curtail ballistic missile activities, they are not working. Iran’s economy might suffer, but not its scientific and military progress.”

If his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, were to be re-elected, the message is more “You better revive the Iran deal President Joe Biden failed to negotiate if you want to stabilise the regional architecture of the Middle East”.

If the missile is the message in Iran, the latest string of attacks sends a message to Israel that “Our ability to violate your sovereignty is improving.”

In reverse, Israel can send the same message to Iran: “Our ability to violate your sovereignty is improving,” – even possibly using AI to disrupt the Islamic Republic’s anti-aircraft systems, including the advanced Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missiles.

Israel was able to tell Iran that it could strike from Iraqi airspace with long distance, ballistic missiles fired from planes to attack the very facilities that produced the missiles that attacked it in early October.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has been sending its own message to Israel, which is likely to have played a role in restraining the Israeli government with respect to Iran. That message was very simple: “Do not strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, escalating a war on the eve of an election.”

The tragedy, however, is that if America indeed has the ability to urge Israel to exercise any restraint, it could have done it sooner, and with even greater effect in other areas of the current conflict. The real message to Israel is: “We’ll restrain you with your attacks in Iran, but let you lash out against Lebanon and Palestinians without limitations.”

How America chooses to use its leverage may give us good insight, then, on what stakes in the Middle East the Biden administration – and perhaps the Democratic Party – considers truly important in this election.

Avoiding an all-out war between Israel and Iran is clearly a bigger electoral issue than the tragedy of what is happening to Palestinians and Lebanese. As a result, the message sent to everyone in the Middle East is that the American elections are not only about the future of the US, but your region as well.