Op True Promise / Iron Shield - 16 April 2024 - Waiting
Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor at Russia's Financial University, argued "Iran has conducted at least three types of tests of strike weapons directed against Israel. And all three were successful.... First, the Iranians tested their ability to coordinate large-scale launches of strike systems. “First, the drones took off and flew to the target for about three hours. Then, with a difference of about an hour, cruise missiles were launched, and 40–50 minutes before the strike, hypersonic ballistic missiles were launched,” explains Vladislav Shurygin. According to the expert, almost all weapons were in the right place at the right time...."
"... the second test was to test the capabilities of Israeli air defense - as well as the systems of foreign countries that helped Israel. “A large number of drones and cruise missiles that were launched through Syria became a decoy. It was on them that planes were lifted and the Iron Dome was used. Therefore, Iran to some extent tested the Israeli air defense system. I tried to understand with what forces and in what directions it works,” Andrei Klintsevich, head of the Center for the Study of Military and Political Conflicts, explains to the newspaper VZGLYAD.... "... the third test - the Iranians tested their hypersonic units. “Iran stretched the coalition forces, pulled them out of the base areas where they were located, and cleared the skies for hypersonics. And now a very serious problem has arisen for the United States - it turned out that they do not have the means to combat hypersound,” sums up Vladislav Shurygin.""
"The means of intercepting missiles today are very expensive - in contrast to the missiles themselves, which can be an order of magnitude cheaper than even what Iran used in its raid."
Expectations have increased over the past few days about the Israeli response to Iran's unprecedented attack, with Israeli leaders asserting that they have "no choice but to respond." The American magazine Foreign Policy pointed to three possible options before Israel, including targeting the Iranian nuclear program. According to the magazine, Iran's unprecedented attack on Israeli territory may increase pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make a stronger response. According to the magazine, experts urge Israel not to rush into making a decision, even as voices within the Israeli war government call for a quick response. Jonathan Lord, a former US Defense Department official and director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a Washington-based think tank, says Israel is likely to respond, “but there is no need to rush.” The magazine raised a group of questions in its report about the possible Israeli response to the Iranian attack, as it indicates 3 methods of response, some of which may be very dangerous and lead to regional escalation, and some of which Israel may try by adopting an approach that may reduce the risks of a regional war. The first option is attacking the Iranian nuclear program. Foreign Policy magazine confirms that the acceleration of the Iranian nuclear program since the United States withdrew from the nuclear agreement 6 years ago, and the growing possibility of Tehran to produce a nuclear weapon within a few months, may make the nuclear facilities the target of an Israeli military operation. But she said again, "This may be a target at the highest level of escalation." Former US defense official Michael Mulroy believes, "If Israel responds to Iran, it may be by striking suspected Iranian nuclear weapons facilities or targeting its defense industrial base." He adds: "If they succeed in implementing either or both successfully, this will confirm to Iran that it has made a strategic mistake in launching an attack on Israel." The Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, Herzi Halevy, stressed that his country will respond to the Iranian attacks, according to the “Times of Israel” website, in its English version. However, according to the magazine, it is difficult to target the Nazanz station, which is considered one of the largest Iranian nuclear facilities, even with the largest bunker-busting bomb, because of its location in a mountainous area in the Zagros mountain range and at a great depth in the ground. This is confirmed by Lord, who says: “The only thing worse than the location of Iran’s potential nuclear program is for Israel to try and fail to destroy it.” A direct attack on the Iranian nuclear program would likely lead to the end of the “temporary alliance” with the Arab countries that helped repel the Iranian missile attack on Israel this week, according to Foreign Policy. It could also drag Iran's proxies, such as Lebanon's Hezbollah, into a more violent direct confrontation with Israel, experts say. With the United States already indicating that it will not support a direct attack on Iran, the Israelis, according to experts, must be careful not to exaggerate in angering the US administration, especially during an election year. The second option is targeting Iranian leaders or sites inside or outside Iran. According to Foreign Policy, Israel can strike targets on Iranian soil that are not directly related to the nuclear program, by targeting a high-value military commander such as the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Air Forces, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, who was the mastermind of the attack that targeted it before. days. “It could go after the guy who organized this huge fireworks display,” Lord says. “And he was always on Israel's mind as a target.” Israel could also go after military sites or weapons depots inside the country, or even the headquarters of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, as Michael Mulroy says: “They are likely to choose to respond directly in Iran, although it is likely that the United States will try to dissuade it from this action to contain and prevent the expansion of the conflict.” ". Israel may move to respond with an escalating assassination campaign against Iranian Revolutionary Guard leaders located outside Iran, in countries such as Iraq and Syria, similar to targeting the Tehran consulate in Damascus, according to the magazine. However, Iran's attacks this week indicate the risk of a significant escalation in the region, so according to Foreign Policy, targeting a high-value figure may force Israel to wait for some time, perhaps for weeks or months. Although Netanyahu may not have the support of the US administration for such operations, they may be sufficient to send deterrence messages to Iran without increasing tensions with Washington. However, there remains a risk of an operational failure targeting a high-ranking military figure, or an IRGC facility, where many Iranian military leaders are hidden, according to the magazine. “Iran is now on a high level of alert,” McKenzie notes. “The leaders will be in bunkers.” Also, the pressure exerted by the United States and other countries to act calmly may discourage a rapid response, according to Foreign Policy. Option Three is to Strike Iran's proxies or launch a cyberattack. If Israeli leaders are concerned about escalating tensions with Iran, Foreign Policy suggests they will choose a less severe response that includes targeting Iranian proxies in the Middle East or launching widespread cyberattacks. According to the magazine, Iran was humiliated during its recent attack on Israel, after very few drones or missiles succeeded in hitting Israeli territory, which caused damage to Tehran’s international credibility. “If Israel is to do something, everything it does should be designed to enhance its technological superiority over Iran,” McKenzie says. According to the magazine, Israel may also choose to launch a more intense military campaign against Lebanese Hezbollah, which is the group closest to and most important to Iran in the region. However, this carries risks for Israel, given its superior missile arsenal to that of Hamas, which exceeds about 100,000 missiles. American officials said that the possible Israeli response to the Iranian attack would be “limited in scope” and include strikes against Iranian forces and proxies supported by Tehran in the region, according to what the American network “ NBC News ” reported. NBC News, which spoke to four American officials, explained that this assessment is based on “conversations between American and Israeli officials that took place last week, before Iran launched its attack on Israel,” on Saturday night and Sunday, with more than 300 drones and missiles. "While Israel was preparing for a possible Iranian attack last week, Israeli officials briefed their American counterparts on potential response options," American officials said. American officials stressed, according to NBC News, that they “have not been informed of Israel’s final decision” on how to respond, explaining that the options “may have changed since the Iranian attack.” They added, "It is not clear when the Israeli response will occur, but it could happen at any time." Al-Hurra TV correspondent in Jerusalem reported on Monday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu summoned Israeli opposition leaders for a security briefing, amid reports indicating that the country will respond to Iran's attack. The scenarios that were reviewed regarding the possible Iranian response to the targeting of its consulate in Damascus (before it occurred) ranged from “a modest attack by Iran, to a large-scale attack that leads to Israeli casualties and the destruction of Israeli facilities,” according to what the officials told the American network. Because the Iranian attack did not result in the death of Israelis or widespread destruction, as American officials said, Israel could respond with one of its “less aggressive” options, such as directing strikes against “targets outside Iran,” according to the American network. NBC News quoted three American officials as saying that the options could include “operations inside Syria,” expressing their belief that the response “is not expected to target senior Iranian officials, but instead will target infrastructure or storage facilities containing... On advanced missile parts or weapons sent from Iran to Hezbollah.” The officials added that the United States "does not intend to participate in a military response," expecting Israel to share information about the operation with Washington in advance, specifically if it could have "negative repercussions on Americans in the region." The Iranian Students News Agency quoted the Iranian President, Ibrahim Raisi, as telling the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, on Tuesday, that Iran’s response would be “harsh” to any move targeting its interests, while the Iranian Foreign Minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, expressed his country’s desire In "Pacification". This came a day after Israel announced that it would respond to the attack launched by Tehran with drones and missiles at the weekend, according to Reuters. Beijing announced on Tuesday, according to Agence France-Presse, that Abdullahian confirmed to his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, during a phone call, Tehran’s desire to “calm down” after its unprecedented bombing of Israel. China's state-run Xinhua news agency reported that Abdullahian stressed during the call that Iran has a "desire to exercise restraint" and has no intention of further escalating tensions. Xinhua also quoted the Iranian minister as saying that the regional situation is "very sensitive." The Iranian minister also warned his Chinese counterpart, according to the agency, that any new attack against Iran’s interests or security would lead to a “decisive, immediate and major” reaction, noting that “this warning is directed especially to Washington.” Xinhua quoted the Chinese minister as saying: “It seems that Iran is able to handle the situation well and prevent the region from experiencing further unrest, while at the same time protecting its sovereignty and dignity.” The Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency , Rafael Grossi, expressed his "concern" about the possibility of Israel targeting Iranian nuclear facilities in response to Tehran's attack on it, stressing that these facilities were closed on Sunday. Grossi said, during a press conference yesterday, Monday, in response to a question about Israel launching a retaliatory strike targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, “We are concerned about this possibility.”
Grossi's statements came on the sidelines of a UN Security Council meeting yesterday devoted to discussing the situation at the Zaporozhye nuclear plant in Ukraine. He added that the Iranian government informed International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors in Iran the day before Sunday that all nuclear facilities subject to inspection "will remain closed for security considerations." Grossi indicated that the closure is for one day, but he nevertheless stressed that inspectors will not return to the facilities until they verify that “the situation is completely calm.”
The Director-General of the United Nations agency stressed the need for both parties to exercise "maximum restraint."
Israel has previously targeted nuclear facilities in the region, as it announced the destruction of the Tammuz reactor in Iraq in 1981, and acknowledged in 2018 that it had launched an air strike 11 years earlier that targeted a reactor under construction in the far east of Syria. Tehran also accused Israel of being behind sabotage of its nuclear facilities, in addition to the assassination of a number of its scientists over the past years.
Israel would not attack civilian targets in Iran, Israel's ambassador to Germany said, adding that Tehran's weekend attack on Israel meanwhile targeted civilians. Speaking to German news channel Welt TV, Ron Prosor said the Israeli response would be "against these military facilities of the mullahs and the ayatollahs," stressing that Israel would have to react and describing it as an act of "self-defense."
Iran launched some 300 drones and missiles at Israel on Saturday, saying it was in retaliation for what it called an Israeli strike on Iran's consulate in Damascus that killed seven people. Prosor said that it must be clear that those who attack Israel must "pay the price," adding that Iran poses a threat not only to Israel but also to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.
There is an "understanding among the pragmatic Sunni states that Iran is actually a terrorist regime," Prosor said. Prosor did not provide any additional details on what Israel's next steps might be. "When, where and how — that's something for our war Cabinet to decide," Prosor said. He also called on Israel's allies to impose further sanctions on Iran, a matter US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has implied is imminent.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed the collection of a bank of Iranian targets in preparation for the response that Israeli officials say is inevitably coming, while Tehran has paved the way for a corresponding response that it says will be strong, broad, and unusual, at a time when the United States continues to work to prevent the region from sliding into an all-out war. According to Al Jazeera's correspondent in Palestine, Fatima Khamaysi, the Israeli War Council is in a state of confusion as it failed to take a decisive decision regarding the possible response to Iran during its second meeting, which was held on Monday and lasted 3 hours, indicating that it will meet again on Tuesday.
Although there is a political and military consensus on the necessity of directing a response to Iran, Khamaysi adds, everyone stresses the need for this to happen at the appropriate time, and this was confirmed by Chief of Staff Herzi Halevy from inside the “Nevatim” military base that was struck by Iran. The final form of this response has not yet been determined, as there is talk of striking nuclear facilities or directing a cyber attack, according to Khamisi.
Despite the state of consensus promoted by the Israeli media, the former head of the Foreign Intelligence Service ( Mossad ) , Yossi Cohen , advised against responding to an attack that did not cause tangible harm to Israel, and recommended exploiting the moment to strengthen the alliance that confronted the Iranian strike, according to an Al Jazeera correspondent. According to the Israeli Channel 12, Israel is concerned with responding to Iran, but it will respond accurately and decisively without dragging the region into a wide-scale war.
In this context, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Washington, Fadi Mansour, quoted the Pentagon spokesman as saying that the Israeli response to Iran appears to have been decided, but he said that the manner and timing of this response are up to officials in Tel Aviv. Mansour quoted the spokesman as saying that the United States does not want to expand the war and continues to work to contain this crisis, stressing that the American forces played a major role in repelling the Iranian strike with the help of other European and Arab countries.
An intelligence official told Mansour that Israel may resort to a strike that does not expand the war in the region, but it will convey a message to the Iranians that “it has the upper hand and is capable of striking in depth,” indicating that the target or targets that will be struck may not be important, but they are deep in Iran from a geographical standpoint. As for Al Jazeera's correspondent in Washington, Wajd Waqfi, she quoted three American officials that Israel has the right to respond, but they also confirmed that American forces in the region will not participate in this response and will remain prepared for a new Iranian response. A senior official told Al Jazeera's correspondent that Washington is currently in contact with both parties to confirm that President Joe Biden does not want an escalation in the region, and is seeking a temporary halt to the fighting in the Gaza Strip that includes the release of prisoners.
In Tehran, Al Jazeera correspondent Abdul Qader Fayez said that Iranian officials take Israel's threats seriously, and are building a system of statements aimed primarily at deterring Tel Aviv. Fayez added that the most prominent Iranian statements in this regard were those issued by Ali Bagheri, the chief negotiator and Deputy Foreign Minister, in which he said that any Israeli targeting of the Iranian depth would be met with a response within seconds and not after 12 days as happened the previous time. Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian also confirmed that Tehran warned the United States that Iran would respond to any targeting of its depth with a “faster, stronger and broader” response, according to Fayez. Fayez quoted an Iranian official as saying that Tehran is “prepared for the second level of response, which may be with new weapons not previously used in the conflict with Israel,” stressing that “Israeli bullying and madness will not work with a country like Iran.”
Fayez described the Iranian statements as an attempt to fortify its position and confirm that it would respond to any Israeli attack. He said that the danger lies in the difference between the first Iranian response, which Tehran described as “wise,” and the second response, which it says will be “strong and broad,” and may lead the region to war. Fayez stressed that the Iranian official assured Al Jazeera that Tehran does not want war with Israel or with anyone else, but is ready to deal with this option if it is imposed on it, according to him.
After Israeli and American waiting and anticipation that did not last long, Iran carried out an intensive strike with drones and missiles against Israel , hours after it seized an Israeli commercial ship near the Strait of Hormuz. This came as part of a response to Israel's bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, which led to the killing of 7 senior military personnel, including 3 senior commanders of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard. If the wave of response that lasted for hours stopped, the possibilities of an Israeli response remain, which raises questions about the nature and impact of this round of escalation on the future of this conflict, and on the possibilities of it developing into a regional war.
According to the American CNN channel, the Iranian attack was “the largest attack in human history using ballistic missiles and drones,” while the New York Times quoted Israeli officials as saying, “Iran launched 185 drones, 36 cruise missiles, and 110 surface-to-surface missiles.” While Israel and America said that the vast majority of the missiles and drones were destroyed, the video images circulated confirmed that targets inside the Zionist entity were hit.
For his part, the Chief of General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Bagheri, said “The operation included targeting the Israeli intelligence headquarters involved in the attack on our consulate, in addition to the “Novatim” base from which the Israeli planes launched against our consulate in Damascus, and that both Israeli headquarters were destroyed.” On the other hand, the Israeli army stated that most of the interceptions of Iranian ballistic missiles and drones took place outside Israeli airspace. Which means that the bulk of it was carried out by American forces in Iraq and Syria and on the shores of the occupation, and also by some Arab countries or American bases in these countries, in addition to the participation of Britain and France in confronting Iranian drones and missiles.
The truth is that what happened is unprecedented in the history of the conflict between the two countries, and constituted a huge blow to Israel that led to the sounding of more than 700 sirens and its spending of $1.35 billion to confront Iranian missiles and drones (Yedioth Ahronoth), while the New York Times estimated that the United States lost about a billion dollars, as It was the most important party in the response process.
The United States of America deployed a missile ship with high defensive and interception capabilities near the coast of Israel, including more than 100 drones and dozens of missiles. However, what made the attack lose its desired effect was its lack of the element of surprise, as it came after diplomatic efforts that took place under the table to understand the scale of the Iranian response. American intelligence sources indicated that Iran reassured the United States that its forces and military bases would not be targeted unless it participated in the response to the attack.
This confirms Iran's unwillingness to escalate and limit itself to a limited, one-time response, even if it threatens that the next attack will be more violent if Israel responds. There is no doubt that the attack was necessary for Iran to preserve its prestige after a series of Israeli attacks on its lands, the most recent of which was the targeting of its consulate in Damascus. Moreover, this attack came late after quarrels and threats between the two countries as a result of the war of genocide on Gaza, which has lasted more than 6 months now.
However, it does not appear that Tehran has decided, until this moment, to abandon its policy of dealing with the entity by avoiding any war with it, unless a comprehensive Israeli attack on Iran occurs. Therefore, it did not intervene directly in the Gaza war, although it coordinated with its allies to participate at a level that would not lead to For a regional war to occur, especially since they are not likely to be subjected to concentrated Israeli strikes that would cause significant damage to the power and influence of these allies.
While Hezbollah still poses a strong threat to the entity, but within the rules of a game that does not lead to a comprehensive war, the Ansar Allah Al-Houthi group poses an important danger to the ships of the entity and those allied with it in the Red Sea, a threat that America and the West have been unable to stop so far, while Hezbollah has been keen to Allah and Al-Houthi linked their escalation to stopping the war on Gaza, which constituted moral support for the Gazans.
As for the impact of the Iranian strikes, they shook the image of Israeli deterrence for the first time from a country on the regional level, after this image had been shaken on the Palestinian level after the Al-Aqsa flood attack last October 7. Al Jazeera wrote that what is more important than that is that Israel's strategic position has been weakened more and more, after it was confirmed for the second time in 6 months that it needs American and Western intervention to protect it, instead of it being an advanced bulwark of the Western project. Israel also lost its prestige and status in the region after it became exposed to Iranian missiles and drones.
As the Israeli government is still in disagreement with US President Joe Biden, after failing to achieve the war goals of eliminating Hamas and liberating the prisoners, the possibilities of the Israeli response and the development of the battle with Iran, including the participation of its allies in the region, will strengthen the dispute with Netanyahu, whose provocation of Iran led to It struck the American strategy in the region, where it wants to achieve sustainable stability in order to devote itself to the Chinese and Russian challenge. Netanyahu will prove once again that he is working in his personal interests, and that he may cause harm to American interests, which will increase his differences with Biden if he does not listen to American advice to control the response to Iran, as he did and ignore American demands in his war on Gaza.
NBC says, citing American officials, that Washington is concerned about a rapid Israeli response to Iran's attack without thinking about the repercussions, and fears that it is trying to drag it into a regional conflict. But in the practical context, this round of conflict demonstrated the continued American commitment to protecting Israel’s security from any threats. This commitment does not appear to be shaken or damaged even with the apparent differences between the two parties. It is known that if Washington wants, it can, through its influence, Israel sticks to its position in the end, as happened after the World Central Kitchen massacre in Gaza.
Although the Iranian strike raised the level of unity among Israelis in the face of the imminent dangers, the impact of this will be limited, and disagreements and divisions within society will return on issues of war, prisoners, Haredi recruitment, the post-war vision, and dealing with the Palestinian Authority. The repercussions of the Iranian attack are still interacting, and it is extremely difficult to estimate the size of the Israeli response, and the extent of the United States’ success in curbing it so that it does not develop into a regional war, especially since the possibility of the Iranian attack being condemned in the Security Council is excluded due to the Russian position, which constitutes political protection for it.
There is speculation that the Israeli response will be inside Iran and similar to the sudden Israeli air strike in which the occupation destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor on June 7, 1981, and was known as Operation Babylon. But this requires American approval for an attack of this kind, which is doubtful after Washington publicly asked Tel Aviv to consult with it before responding. In light of the differences existing between the two parties, it is doubtful that the United States would allow Israel to carry out a painful strike deep inside Iran, because that would provoke another Iranian response that would lead to a dangerous regional escalation that Washington seeks to avoid, as we mentioned above.
Washington may allow Israel to conduct selective operations, perhaps in Iran's areas of influence such as Syria, Iraq, or even Lebanon and Yemen, which could convince Iran to respond positionally through its allies in the region. However, there are no guarantees of non-escalation, because the entity was subjected to a massive, unprecedented blow in its history from an Islamic state, under a government dominated by hardened extremists who always push for confrontation.
Netanyahu is also seeking to escalate and continue the war in the region so that he remains at the helm of power, which may undermine the existing understanding between Iran and America regarding the necessity of not expanding the war and isolating the incident and keeping it within the limits of a one-time situation. It seems that Iran has not yet decided to completely change the rules of the game against Israel. It is adopting a policy of strategic patience in favor of focusing on the expansionist project in the region and not engaging in a direct confrontation with Israel. If it wanted to, it could dismantle the equation of strategic deterrence with Israel, and change the rules of the game with it, if it decided to continue with the response approach it took, even though it might pay a heavy economic price and allow the United States to join the conflict.
The spokesperson for the Israeli forces, Daniel Hagari, remarked that "Israel's" concentration on the Iranian nuclear threat was disproportionate as it neglected the ballistic threat that it poses. An official from the United States, speaking to ABC News, acknowledged that the US also placed excessive reliance on the mistaken belief that Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei would exercise caution and refrain from directly ordering an attack on Israel. Following the recent weekend attack and a comprehensive review of Iran's activities, the United States now finds it imperative to conduct a meticulous examination and reevaluation of the situation, the official added.
On his part, a former head of the Iran desk at the Israeli Mossad, Sima Shine, indicated that Israel's assessment was inaccurate, noting that "the rules of the game" have shifted. Meanwhile, a significant missile barrage was previously deemed conceivable but improbable, Shine remarked.
In a related context, the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom considered that Iran's retaliatory attack against Israeli targets is a stark reminder of the loss of Israeli and US strategic deterrence, highlighting that it created an opportunity to change the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. The newspaper indicated that Iran has put itself in direct confrontation with "Israel", even at a time that does not seem optimal for it, and has acted against US President Joe Biden's warning not to. It suggested that Iran "has established a sophisticated strategy and is patiently, endlessly trying to create a reality where there becomes a question mark about Israel's existence, not just a theory." Elsewhere, the newspaper stressed that "Israel" must prioritize and focus efforts on attempting to harness the United States, alongside a large Western alliance, to deal with the Iranian attack to restore deterrence.
Tehran - through a number of its officials - warned Israel of a rapid, broad and stronger response if it launched an attack on it, and while Israel is studying plans for an attack on Iran , Washington warned of the repercussions that would have on the region. Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian said that Tehran warned Washington that "if the Israeli entity undertakes any adventure, our response will be faster, stronger and broader." Abdullahian stressed that Iran does not want to escalate tensions in the region, adding, "The White House warned us clearly that Tehran's response and the next action will be decisive, swift, and comprehensive if the Zionist regime attempts to repeat terrorist attacks on Iran's interests and security."
For his part, Ali Bagheri Kani, Iranian Assistant Foreign Minister and chief negotiator in the nuclear file, said that his country will respond within seconds to any possible Israeli attack. In statements to Iranian state television, Kani described Israel's targeting of the consular section of the Iranian embassy in the Syrian capital, Damascus, as a strategic mistake. Kenny pointed out that Iran's response to Israel demonstrated its military and defensive capabilities within the framework of self-defense. He added, "The Zionist regime must know that if it commits another mistake, the response will not be delayed by 12 days, not days or hours, but rather within seconds." The Iranian official stated that his country is prepared for any eventuality, saying, "The Zionists must not make the second mistake because Iran's reaction will be harsher, stronger, and faster."
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani said that his country's attack on a number of Israeli military headquarters was carried out within the framework of the right to self-defense. He added that his country's response to the Damascus attack was logical, and that Iran does not seek to escalate tension in the region, as he put it. In this context, an Iranian official told Al Jazeera that Iran does not want war, but is ready for it if it is imposed on it, and that its options are wide. The Iranian official explained to Al Jazeera that "the Israeli entity must know that crazy and bullying behavior does not work with a country like Iran." He continued, "Iran has the full will to respond militarily to the Israeli entity again, but in a stronger way." He stressed that "Iran is ready for the second level of response through weapons that have not been used previously in the conflict with the Israeli entity."
On the other hand, Israeli media confirmed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supports launching an attack in response to the Iranian attack that targeted Israel. The Israeli War Council concluded a meeting - yesterday, Monday - that extended for 3 hours, and no official statement was issued after the meeting, but CNN quoted an Israeli official as saying that the Council reviewed military plans for a possible response to Iran.
In turn, the newspaper "Haaretz" reported that one of the sources familiar with the Council's discussions confirmed the presence of intense international pressure on Israel that greatly affects decision-making regarding the possible response. The source stated that Netanyahu tends to support attacks on Iran, and the security establishment is pressing to carry out these attacks.
The Israeli Broadcasting Authority quoted sources as saying that the Prime Minister refused to receive calls from foreign leaders after the Iranian attack for fear that he would be exposed to pressure that would prevent him from responding to the attack. For its part, Israeli Channel 12 stated that the Israeli response “will be in a way that Washington accepts and will not likely lead to the region being drawn into war,” and explained that “the Israeli political and security leadership has decided to respond clearly and decisively to the Iranian attack.”
In contrast to the Israeli enthusiasm for launching an attack on Iran, the US Department of Defense confirmed that Washington is not seeking escalation, but is taking the necessary measures to protect Israel, and added, “Israel will decide whether to respond to the Iranian attack, but we are not seeking escalation.” For his part, an American official told Al Jazeera that Washington is continuing its efforts to prevent further escalation, but stressed that the decision is up to Israel. The official indicated that Israel may resort to striking targets deep inside Iran, and stressed that the potential attack “does not aim to escalate, but rather to make Iran understand Israel’s ability to reach anywhere.”
Experts on Al Jazeera ruled out Israel's involvement in a quick war with Iran, as part of its expected response to the Iranian bombing it was subjected to with drones and missiles a few days ago, with expectations that an Israeli response would not lead to a comprehensive war in the region. According to Ihab Jabareen, a writer specializing in Israeli affairs, Israel wants a quick war and is pushing Washington to get involved in it, “but the strategic elements do not allow it to enter this war.” Thus, the expected Israeli response - according to Jabareen - will not go beyond a short-term strike in time, or postponed indefinitely, but with a more painful impact, as happened in the Second Gulf War in 1991.
Jabareen explained - during his speech on the program "Gaza... What's next?" - that Washington asked Tel Aviv at the time not to respond to Baghdad, and it committed to doing so, before it later launched several strikes against Iraq. He pointed out that Israel is trying to cause pain to Tehran without disturbing Washington and igniting the region, based on the statements of War Council member Benny Gantz, who said that Tel Aviv will respond to Tehran at the appropriate time and manner.
He stated that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is concerned with escalating the crisis in the region, and Israel is concerned with restoring deterrence, but he added that the former lost on the night of April 14, while the “deep state in Israel” achieved gains in its communication with the alliance formed by Washington against Iran. However, Jabareen asserts that Israel has entered a turning point in recent months, and has succeeded in forming an alliance to defend it, which has given it comfort for the short term, while Iran wants to put what happened in the context of a state of exhaustion.
For his part, Dr. Ziad Majed, professor of political science at the American University in Paris, stressed that there is a similarity in the positions of Iran, Hezbollah, and Israel. Each party maintains its deterrence capacity, but no one wants to ignite a regional confrontation. Majid stressed that Israel is showing an intention to regain the initiative, and that Iran will not have the last shot, while at the same time recalling the unwillingness of US President Joe Biden to cover the Israeli military response. He expected the Israeli response to be between a strike that could lead to major losses and expand the scope of the war, or to be limited to a “scenic response” rather than inflicting massive losses that would lead to widespread shooting.
The political science professor concluded that each party “does not want to accept the new rules of engagement without a response to that,” indicating that the Iranians sent a message with firepower without pushing Israel into a comprehensive confrontation. He added that Tehran does not want a regional war for economic reasons, and also to bet on revival negotiations. The nuclear agreement. He added, "Between the major escalation and the exchange of fiery and political messages, it could get out of control if one party causes major damage to another party," stressing that there is a great fear that things will get out of control, which is evident in Biden's warnings to Netanyahu against miscalculations.
It is believed that Netanyahu is concerned with the continuation of tension to cover up the war of extermination in Gaza. He also “wants to balance his alliance with Washington - and his far-right coalition - through a strike on Iran, as a result of which he would benefit from an Iranian response to remain in this cycle, implicate the Americans, and exhaust all parties.”
Mehr News Agency quoted the Deputy Chairman of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Iranian Shura Council, Shahriar Heydari, as saying, “The Jordanian government’s opening of its country’s airspace to the Zionists to confront Iranian attacks is a strategic mistake.” Haidari added, "At least Jordan could have remained silent or even supported Iran's legitimate defense against the Zionist entity."
These statements come after the Jordanian Foreign Ministry announced - last Sunday - that it had summoned the Iranian ambassador to Amman, and asked his country to stop “questioning” Jordan’s positions on the Palestinian issue after the Kingdom announced the interception of “flying objects” during the Iranian attack on Israel. Foreign Minister Ayman Al-Safadi said at the time, “Unfortunately, there were offensive statements (against Jordan) by the Iranian media, including the Iranian official news agency.” He added, " Iran's problem is with Israel, not with Jordan. Neither Iran nor anyone else can outbid what Jordan is doing, what it is offering, and what it has provided historically for Palestine." He stressed that "if this danger was coming from Israel, Jordan would take the same action it did, and this is a position we confirm clearly and frankly, and we will not allow anyone to endanger the security of Jordan and the Jordanians."
Jordan announced - last Sunday - that it had intercepted “flying objects” that violated its airspace on Saturday night, coinciding with the missile and drone attack launched by Iran on Israel. Video clips showed the interception of objects in the Kingdom's airspace during the night, at a time when the remains of at least one missile fell in the Marj Al-Hamam area in the Jordanian capital. Users of social media platforms in the Kingdom also shared video clips showing the wreckage of another missile in the Al-Hasa area in the Tafila Governorate in the south of the Kingdom.
The Jordanian Armed Forces also announced that its air force had increased its sorties "to prevent any penetration into Jordanian airspace and to defend the skies of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan." It indicated that this measure confirms Jordan's firm position not to allow the use of "Jordanian airspace by any party for any purpose, given the infringement it constitutes on Jordanian sovereignty, and what may threaten the security of the nation and the safety of its citizens." It is noteworthy that Iran launched more than 300 drones and missiles at Israel last Saturday night, in the first attack launched by Iran directly from its territory on Israel, and not through groups loyal to it, and it came in response to a missile attack that targeted the consular section of the Iranian embassy in Damascus in early April.
The Washington Post newspaper quoted American, European and Arab intelligence officials as confirming that Russia’s pledge to provide Iran with advanced fighters and air defense technology may strengthen Tehran’s defenses against any possible Israeli attacks after the Iranian attack , within the framework of the strengthening relations between the two countries in the wake of the Ukraine war. The officials told the newspaper that the number of defensive systems that Moscow has provided to Tehran is unknown, stressing that Russian technology could turn Iran into a much stronger adversary, with an enhanced ability to shoot down aircraft and missiles.
The officials confirmed that Russia also pledged to provide technical support for Iranian spy satellites and help build missiles to place more Iranian satellites in space. They added that the arms deals between the two countries are part of a broader cooperation that includes the joint production of drones within Russia and the exchange of anti-jamming technology, which raises Iran’s status from a small ally to a strategic partner.
This comes after Iran attacked Israel with dozens of drones and missiles last Saturday in response to Tel Aviv’s targeting of its consulate in Damascus at the beginning of this month, while Israel has not yet reached a decision about the nature of its response to the Iranian attack. Sources also told the Washington Post that Tehran and Moscow are negotiating the latter's delivery to Iran of Sukhoi-35 fighters , which are considered among the most powerful Russian aircraft.
However, officials from the United States and the Middle East told the Washington Post that there is no evidence that Iran has received the fighters yet, and the reason behind this may be Iran’s delay in paying dues for the planes. Officials confirmed to the Washington Post that even if Iran has not yet received the Russian fighters, the exchange of military technological expertise between the two countries would develop Tehran's defense capabilities.
Last year, Iran announced the completion of the deal to purchase Su-35 fighters from Russia, without adding any information about their number or date of arrival. Since the outbreak of the Ukrainian war in February 2022, military cooperation between Tehran and Moscow has increased, especially with Iran supplying Russia with “ Shahed ” drones.
Le Point magazine said that the "flood of fire and technology" unleashed by Iran toward Israel in response to the attack on its consulate in Damascus made Israeli defense systems operate at full capacity for several hours. With this introduction, the magazine opened an interview with military historian Benoit Behan. He began by saying that it would be a mistake for Israel to rely on the strength of its defenses, stressing that the Iranian attack was not aimed at causing human and material damage as much as it was a test of the weapons by measuring their quality and measuring the strength of the enemy’s defenses, especially since the confrontation Strategy and military have only just begun.
The French military historian indicated - in the interview summarized by Julien Peron - that Iran does not appear to have used its latest weapons in this attack, as the attack began by sending a number of drones towards Israel. He pointed out, in this regard, that Tehran possesses several models of drones , many of which can be used as long-range munitions, especially the “Shahed-136” drone, which is small in size and can reach 2,500 kilometers, but its speed does not exceed 185 kilometers per hour and its payload 50 kilograms of explosives.
According to the military expert, this drone is relatively easy to shoot down, and Tehran has a more advanced type, the Shahed-238, which operates with a small engine and is therefore faster. Although these drones are not expected to penetrate the Israeli defenses, their role may be to force the defenders to use part of their means against them, thus consuming their ammunition, which is more expensive than the drone itself, as the cheapest missiles available to Israel are 3 or 4 times more expensive than the Shahed-136.
Perhaps these drones also contribute to occupying part of the Israeli defenses, to allow other weapons used, such as cruise missiles, to have a greater probability of success. It is also logical - according to the expert - that Tehran wanted to evaluate the Israeli response to different categories of weapons, to improve its capabilities to coordinate these different munitions together in a simultaneous strike.
According to the expert, Israel is technically and tactically capable of shooting down this large number of drones, because it possesses 280 combat aircraft, is well supported by advanced detection methods, and also possesses an air-ground defense system that is considered one of the best in the world, in terms of technical performance or density of means. However, he warned that the American contribution remains necessary for Israel, in terms of enhancing in-flight refueling capabilities, and then in order to “open” the Iraqi and Jordanian airspace diplomatically, and the American, French, and British early warning capabilities were important.
Therefore, Israel, despite its technical and tactical capabilities, needs Western support from a diplomatic standpoint, and at the level of ammunition reserves, especially since interceptor missiles, by virtue of their mission, are highly advanced and therefore expensive weapons and available in limited numbers, compared to Tehran’s large stock of cheap weapons. Here is part of the Iranian implicit threat - according to Benoit Behan - it threatens a war of attrition that it believes Israel and its allies will not be able to bear in the long term.
But he warned that Iron Dome is not the only one Israel has, as it has a multi-layered solar defense system that combines several different and integrated systems , such as the Arrow long-range anti-missile system, the American Patriot system, and its successor known as “ David’s Sling .” It also has some systems. Point defense, including "Iron Beam", a directed energy system that is still experimental.
The military expert concluded that Iran seeks to achieve three goals from this attack, which combines drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles.
- The first goal is to show strength and defiance by striking Israel directly, instead of using a mediator to carry out the strike, which shows that Tehran does not fear a possible Israeli response, and deters Tel Aviv from repeating such strikes.
- The second goal is to remain below the threshold of open war, and to stabilize the situation rather than escalate it. For this reason, the Iranians “reported” their attack on a large scale, knowing full well that it would reach the United States and Israel.
- The goal of voluntarily abandoning any effect of surprise was precisely to ensure that Israel would be in a state of defense, so that the strike could be massive and achieve the first goal, but its real effects were limited and did not fulfill the second goal. However, Iran also wants to achieve a third goal. This goal is to place Israel in a strategic dilemma in the wake of the attack: either it accepts calm or acts weakly, or it escalates and responds violently or disproportionately, in which case it faces the risk of diplomatic and perhaps military isolation.
The French military historian concluded that military influence was not the main goal sought by this strike, especially since Iran did not use its most powerful weapons, indicating that the geopolitical confrontation between Iran and Israel may occur in the long term. Today, Tehran has become at the heart of the game in the Middle East, and is on an equal footing with Israel in terms of its ability to operate strategically, despite the great difference between them in military means, as he put it.
Abbas Juma, an international journalist, political commentator, Middle East and Africa specialist, wrote : "Tehran found itself in a tough situation. It had to respond in a way that would look convincing and would achieve specific military goals, but would not start World War III.
"To achieve the first point, Iran had to carry out a direct strike without resorting exclusively to proxy forces – and that is indeed how it acted. Regarding the second point, even though most of the missiles and drones were indeed shot down, some managed to penetrate Israeli air space and hit military targets. The Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Mohammad Bagheri, said that the information center on the Israeli-Syrian border and Israel’s Nevatim air base were hit. And finally, as to the third point – war didn’t happen. This resembled the situation in 2020, when the Iranians hit US bases in Iraq in response to the assassination of General Soleimani.
"However, it is still too early to speculate as to whether Iran’s attack was a success or not. The big question now is how Israel will respond.
"It’s important to emphasize that Iran’s operation carried more political than military weight. In this sense, it was carried out subtly and was a success. Obviously, the Iranians did not want to start a war which would involve the US, even though that is what Netanyahu wanted. In other words, Israel didn’t manage to provoke Iran. It is also obvious that the Islamic Republic possesses more powerful drones and missiles than those used in the attack on April 14. However, even the less advanced drones and missiles were able to penetrate Israeli air space and inflict economic damage, since Israel spent much more money on shooting down the missiles and drones than Iran spent on launching them.
"Essentially, the attack carried out by Iran on April 14 was not just a retaliatory strike, but established a new order. Iran demonstrated that it is ready to resort to new means of influence in a situation where words are not sufficient. It attacked Israel directly not in order to start a war, but to demonstrate what could happen if all other methods of pressure on Israel fail. A new option has been put forward. Israel may be deprived of its most important advantage – absolute impunity, which until recently had been guaranteed by the US."
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
