The United States was left blindsided when its closest ally, Israel, launched an air strike operation on April 1st, causing the death of numerous high-ranking Iranian officials located at Iran’s embassy in Syria. The USA was only informed of its ally’s actions moments before the attack took place. While publicly supporting Israel, privately, US officials expressed their discontent for Israel’s aggressive move against Iran without prior discussion with Washington.
The Israelis misjudged the situation, inaccurately predicting that Iran would not retaliate forcefully, a sentiment held by several US officials and a senior Israeli figure. In turn, Iran responded with more than 300 drones and missiles targeted at Israel last weekend – a significant retaliatory act, although it caused minor damage. This has highlighted a significant shift in the unwritten engagement rules in the longstanding conflict between Israel and Iran, with the escalating tensions sparking concern for potential full-blown warfare.
Even as it became apparent that Iran would respond, both American and Israeli officials initially dismissed the idea of a severe retaliation. But soon they found themselves continually readjusting their understanding of the situation. This portrayal of the tense encounters over the recent weeks is based on interviews conducted with officials from the US, Israel, Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. All were anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the discussion.
The Israeli operation, targeting Muhammad Reza Zahedi, commander for Syria and Lebanon of Iran’s esteemed Quds Force associated with the Revolutionary Guard, was planned two months prior, as acknowledged by two Israeli officials. Israel’s war cabinet approved the mission on March 22nd, as confirmed by internal Israeli defence records.
These records stated that the Israeli government prepared for a range of Iranian responses, mainly smaller-scale assault by proxies. However, none of these assessments anticipated the full intensity of Iran’s actual reaction.
Following the strike, Iran promised retaliation both on public platforms and via diplomatic routes. Expressing that they did not intend to wage outright war with Israel, and even less so with America, they also conveyed private messages. American officials found themselves in a peculiar situation: their usually reliable ally, Israel, had acted on an important matter without informing them; meanwhile, their adversary, Iran, had communicated their intentions clearly.
The Iranian display of military power that took place last weekend was significant, but nearly all the missiles and drones were successfully intercepted by Israel and its allies. The few that managed to reach their targets caused minimal damage. As per Iranian officials, the attack was designed to cause limited harm.
American authorities advised the Israeli leadership to consider their effective defence a triumph, implying that there was little, if any, need for additional retaliation. However, despite global calls for reducing tensions, Israeli authorities posited that Iran’s assault merited a rebuttal.
In fact, Israeli leaders were on the brink of sanctioning extensive strikes on Iran during the night Iran initiated the attack, as reported by Israeli officials.
The October 7th attack by Hamas has, according to Israeli officials, altered the standards of regional conflict. The opposition views Israel’s later invasion of the Gaza Strip as the catalyst for this change.
By March, the rapport between the Biden administration and Israel had become seriously strained. This was followed by the Israeli assault in Damascus which resulted in the death of seven Iranian officers, including Zahedi.
The Israelis conceded later that they had severely underestimated the after-effects of the raid. This sentiment was revealed by US officials and an Israeli authority.
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin expressed his frustrations directly to Yoav Gallant, the Israeli Defence minister on April 3rd, according to US officials. Austin voiced his concern that the attack had endangered US troops in the area and that the absence of advanced warning did not provide sufficient time to enhance their defences.
The Swiss ambassador in Tehran was summoned by Iran’s foreign affairs ministry on the night of the Damascus attack. He was entrusted with communicating Iran’s vehement displeasure with the assault to Washington. Iran held the US, being Israel’s chief supporter, responsible for the action.
The US communicated clearly to Iran that it was uninvolved in the attack and had no desire for war, using Oman, Turkey and Switzerland as go-betweens due to the absence of official diplomatic ties between Iran and the US.
In response, the Iranian government embarked on an unusually open and extensive diplomatic effort, spreading the message that it viewed the attack as an encroachment on its sovereignty demanding revenge.
On the 7th of April, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, Iran’s foreign affairs minister, met with his Omani counterpart, Badr Albusaidi. Oman is a key mediator between Iran and the West. According to a diplomat briefed on the meeting, Iran’s assertive message was that it had an obligation to counterattack, but the retaliation would be restrained.
Prior to and following a particular conference, there was a flurry of telephonic interactions involving General Charles Brown, the head of America’s joint chiefs of staff; Antony Blinken, the state secretary; Jake Sullivan the national security adviser; Joe Biden, the US president; Austin; their respective equivalents in Israel, China, India, and Iraq; NATO allies and so on, as confirmed by officials.
The administration under Biden didn’t believe it had the ability to deter Iran completely from launching an attack, revealed a US representative, but they were hopeful of containing its magnitude. Blinken held conversations with senior members of the Israeli cabinet, offering assurance that America would extend support in thwarting any Iranian offence and persuading them against mounting any hasty retaliation.
According to Israeli and Iranian representatives, Iran conveyed that it would modulate its onslaught so as to avoid instigating a counterattack from Israel. However, Israel claimed, in contrast to its message, Iran was in fact amplifying its assault strategies, desiring at least a fraction of its weapons to breach Israel’s safeguards.
Previously frequent assertions by Biden and his advisors, which were firmly reiterated by him publicly on Wednesday, were that, in spite of existing tension with Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, America had an unwavering commitment towards safeguarding Israel from assailments. Nevertheless, the Biden administration concurrently intensified their diplomatic exertions to avert a clash.
Partly courtesy of worldwide collaboration, the Israelis claimed they had an advanced awareness of Iran’s intended targets. The US army collaborated on aerial defence efforts with the military of Israel, Britain and France as well as crucially with Jordan, strategically nestled between Iran and Israel.
Worldwide news about the initial phase of the Iranian assault on Saturday, consisting of 185 drones, relatively unhurried, began to disseminate hours before any reached Israel. The subsequent launch of three dozen cruise missiles by Iran proved much quicker; yet, the primary challenge was Iran’s ballistic missiles, as they launched 110, marking the first significant test of Israel’s anti-ballistic missile defence apparatus.
Most of the drones and missiles were taken down by warplanes and air defence systems of the US, Britain, France, Israel and Jordan before they could enter Israel. Out of those that did enter Israeli airspace – merely 75 – the majority were intercepted and shot down, officials from Israel stated.
Throughout the course of the strike, the Iranian administration maintained constant communication with the Oman government to exchange messages with the US, according to Iranian representatives.
Iran perceived and projected its onslaught against Israel as a balanced and appropriate action that should not incite any escalation.
In a statement on national television, Hossein Salami, the Chief Commander of the Revolutionary Guard, confirmed that a restricted operation was conducted as a mirror reaction to the malevolent conducts of the Israeli authority. Diplomats have warned that the current crisis in Iran may alleviate Israel’s Gaza issue.
US President Biden, in a conversation with Netanyahu, noted the technological supremacy of Israel owing to its triumphant defence strategies, as reported by John Kirby, a spokesperson for national security. Yet, the Israeli administration painted the assault in considerably graver shades due to its sheer magnitude.
Following the revelation of Iranian assaults on Saturday, certain officials argued for an immediate counterstrike. Ultimately, Israel responded early Friday morning. Originally, this report was featured in the New York Times.