Iran’s ruling clerics were coerced by the Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) into launching this weekend’s assault, marking the first attack on Israel by a regional power since Iraq’s scud missile firing during the Gulf War in 1991. Seen as a retaliatory act in remembrance of the seven officials, including Mohammad Reza Zahdi, who lost their lives during Israel’s April 1st airstrike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus, the air onslaught was initiated by Iran.
The clerics had earlier opposed directly confronting Israel due to the potential escalation into a broader regional conflict. However, the lack of retaliation to the consulate attack by the government infuriated the IRGC hardliners and the general public, who perceived it as a ‘weakness’ and a green light for Israel to continue its assault on Iran, including the murders of Iranian researchers and attacks on their nuclear sites and IRGC units in Syria.
Despite being aware of the harsh consequences, including heavy retaliation from Israel against which Iran has minimal defences, the country followed through with its attack on Israel. Although armed with ballistic and cruise missiles and drones in its offensive arsenal, Iran lacks sufficient defensive capabilities in contrast to Israel. It also anticipated criticism from the West and neighbouring Arab nations for risking a regional conflict.
To minimise large-scale fatalities and destruction, Iran carefully devised an attack that would serve to communicate to Israel that future unreciprocated assaults would not be tolerated. The widely believed perception among regional observers that Iran’s message was sent via the hijacking of an Israeli-owned vessel near the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday turned out to be a ruse. The real message was delivered through an extensively publicised nocturnal raid involving slow-moving cruise missiles and drones, which however, were promptly intercepted by Israel and its allies well before entry into Israel’s airspace. Minor harm was caused to Israel’s Nevatim airbase by ballistic missiles.
Having accomplished its objective of punishing Israel, Iran declared its mission a success. However, Israel also claimed victory as it managed to neutralise 99% of the inbound missiles. Presently, the situation appears to be a benefit for both parties. Nevertheless, Iran has warned that it would counter strongly if Israel opts for significant retaliation, potentially triggering a mutually destructive conflict.
The assault by Iran has resulted in unforeseen implications. Instead of increasing pressure on Israel to declare a halt to hostilities in Gaza and sanction the delivery of vital humanitarian assistance, global and regional forces have centred their endeavours on stabilising the Iran-Israel frontier. Israel, having withdrawn a significant number of its military personnel from Gaza, has summoned two reserve regiments that could initiate its postponed Rafah operation.
Israel, often perceived as a casualty, has made a recovery from the ethical and political seclusion triggered by its actions in Gaza. Preceding Iran’s assault, a majority of Israelis were advocating for the resignation of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. However, Israel’s successful defence against the Iranian assault has somewhat solidified his standing.
President of the United States, Joe Biden, who previously ignored Netanyahu for dismissing his counsel on Gaza, has restarted their conversations. Whilst asserting full US support for Israel, Biden has cautioned against an all-out Israeli assault on Iran, affirming that the US will not participate. Given that this has been his goal for several years, Netanyahu can be assumed to persist in his efforts to involve the US into a clash.