This opinion piece by Amin Saikal, an Adjunct Professor of Social Science at The University of Western Asutralia, was originally published in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald on 7 October.

Israel and Iran are locked in a vicious cycle of hostility that can easily spiral into a regional inferno of global proportions. While knowing that a war can be devastating for both countries and the region, they are closer to this happening than ever before.

A Gaza ceasefire and release of the remaining Israeli hostages are needed to avoid further escalation. Yet, such a development has proved elusive so far because of a clash of what constitutes national and regional security for either side.

Israel is on a mission to reshape the contours of the Middle East in its favour. Iran wants to preserve its regional network of affiliates and influence as imperative for safeguarding itself against Israel with the United States as the power behind it. Both sides see each other as a mutually existential threat.

The latest Iranian missile attack on Israel was of a different posture than that in April. It was twice as powerful and its arrival was not telegraphed in advance. It aimed at causing substantial damage to three Israeli military bases and the Israeli spy agency Mossad. It was intended to avenge the alleged Israeli assassination of the Palestinian political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July, and the targeted killing of a number of Iranian and Hezbollah commanders, followed by that of Hezbollah's supremo Hassan Nasrallah, and the invasion of southern Lebanon.

Further, it was meant to show that Israel was vulnerable and not invincible, as well as to raise Tehran's credibility with its regional allies. Iran's powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps acted at the direction of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rather than that of the newly elected president Masoud Pezeshkian who comes from the reformist faction of the Islamic regime.

It has promised to counter any Israeli retaliation with greater severity. Otherwise, it is quite content to avoid a war and see Israel trapped in Lebanon at high human and financial costs in its invasion of the country's south.

Israel's Iron Dome, along with American and British efforts intercepted many of the projectiles, but some hit their targets: three air bases, and an area just outside Mossad's headquarters. The episode shocked and panicked most Israelis, whose cities, especially Tel Aviv, had not experienced such a barrage before.

As expected, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the attack as a "great mistake" and vowed to retaliate.

Meanwhile, Israel has pushed on with its scorched earth operations in Gaza and what Netanyahu has called a "targeted, localised" invasion of southern Lebanon. The aim is to push Hezbollah back beyond the Litani River (29 kilometres north of the Israeli border), so that about 60,000 displaced Israelis can return home.

Israel's supporters, led by the US, have castigated Iran for the attack. Washington has promised more sanctions and urged Israel to be measured in its response. But as the "iron-clad" security, financial and economic provider of Israel, it has little or no leverage to restrain Netanyahu, short of cutting off its arms supplies to Israel, which it is not prepared to do.

The ball is now in the court of the Israeli leader. What form his retaliation takes will be critical. If he decides to go for a disproportionate response by targeting Iranian oil platforms, military installations and nuclear facilities, that will only escalate the conflict. Tehran may find itself with little choice but to retaliate to protect its interests. In this case, the US will definitely enter the fight on Israel's side.

Tehran has said that in the event of a war, all Israeli, American and allied assets in the region will be a target. Iran's air power is very limited, but it possesses advanced missile systems to conduct warfare within a well-developed asymmetrical strategy. It also has close strategic ties with Russia, whose prime minister visited Tehran just before the Iranian missile salvos at Israel. In a wider conflict, Tehran can count on the full support of Russia, China, and a NATO member, Turkey.

On the other hand, should Netanyahu and his extremist supporters restrain themselves and embrace a Gaza ceasefire as the fundamental demand of Tehran and its regional affiliates, not only would the remainder of the Israeli hostages be freed, but an escalation can be avoided. The avenue will also open for a diplomatic resolution of the long-running Israeli-Hezbollah hostility and Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The key to what transpires next lies with the Israeli and Iranian leaderships, and Washington.

Use of force to generate favourable changes has never paid off in the volatile, yet hydro-carbon rich and strategically important, Middle East. The region is in the throes of an uncontrollable explosion, but this can still be avoided.

Amin Saikal is author of How to Lose a War: The story of America's intervention in Afghanistan.