Israel's strategic strike
So far, Tehran seems satisfied with the 350 drones and missiles it launched toward Israel, as observers and Iran itself were expecting a far harsher response.
The Israeli strike, its modalities, technology, tactics and chosen targets are military matters that have an impact on broader developments. Indeed, the question of using drones or fighter jets is not only tactical but also political.
If Israel had used fighter jets, did they fire from across the border or did they enter Iranian airspace? Or did other countries let them use their airspace? Did the jets use U.S. ships to refuel, and where were the ships used for this purpose based? If the jets entered Iranian airspace, which anti-aircraft systems were to have intercepted them? Are such systems even able to track Israeli fighter jets? Who helped Israel identify its targets? Why did it select the target of an anti-aircraft radar located in an army base in Natanz (in the Isfahan province)?
Any answers would help clarify the strike's impact on future political equations.
Iran and Israel are not engaged in a classic war; the airstrikes were political in nature. Tehran may have acted to ease pressure from regional allies to respond to Israel's attack on its consular building in Damascus. Iran calibrated its retaliation to make a big noise without pushing Israel to unleash hell.
Members of the Iranian Army are leaving Friday prayer in front of the main entrance of Tehran University during an anti-Israel rally in Tehran.
Rouzbeh Fouladi/ZUMA
Throwing dust in Iran's eyes
On the Israeli side, it is safe to say that the operations were decided by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's war cabinet, meaning that even details such as the choice of weaponry are subject to political considerations.
Israel's strike may also have had a message for Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: Israel has no reservations nor technical impediments to striking anything in Iran, anywhere and at any time; Israel is fully aware of Iran's defensive weaknesses.
While avoiding another war is understandable, appeasing Tehran has costs down the line.
More importantly, did Khamenei receive these messages? Are senior officers informing the Khamenei, as head of the armed forces, of security and technical weaknesses? Or are they taking him for a ride like they have with the regime's rank-and-file partisans?
While the strike seems to have cause extremely limited damage — certainly compared to some previous acts of sabotage — it may have sought to unnerve senior Iranian soldiers and technicians. Why didn't Israel target anything pertaining to the Revolutionary guards, or air-defense systems closer to nuclear installations?
Israel is not so naive as to think it has taught Tehran a lesson. So expect second and third rounds in the future.
As the dust settles...
As the dust of the first round settles, we can venture to say the following:
1 - Israel's limited strike is unlikely to enrage Iran's proxy forces and inside partisans, easing pressure on Iran to act. Indeed many Iranian military personnel were reportedly delighted to see how little harm Israel had done, and Tehran is delighted in turn to see them quiet down. Tehran needs their support in case of another round of protests inside Iran; it cannot have them mired in a tit-for-tat with Israel.
2 - The strike showed that Israel retains all strike options against Iran, even though it chose not to hit more crucial targets inside the country. That decision naturally prompts its own questions.
3 - The strike came five days after Iran's retaliation. In the meantime, Israel made ample use of its Persian-language social media to stress to Iranians that this was a fight with the regime in Tehran. Israeli foreign and defense ministries reiterated their country's support for ordinary Iranians' aspirations to live in a free country. This verbal campaign and limited military strikes on Iran may be part of Israel's longer-term strategy to uncouple the regime from as many Iranians as possible.
Both sides are preparing for the next round.
4 - The spike in tensions has also broadly coincided with a resumed and thuggish drive by Iranian authorities to enforce Islamic dress norms. In fact, the hijab drive peaked in the five days between Iran's assault and Israel's response. Was this related to the regime's frayed nerves? Was Tehran concerned it might have to fight Israel and the Iranian public simultaneously? Yet the regime's fears of a dual front have now eased.
5 - While avoiding another war is understandable, appeasing Tehran has costs down the line. The Oct. 7 attack on Israel was in part the consequence of years of appeasement — a history as long as a string of Democratic U.S. administrations. Pressure from the current Biden administration may have been one reason behind Israel's "lame" action.
Iranian academic Sadegh Zibakalam, a fairly outspoken critic of the regime, observed that the strike was designed not to force Iran's hand again. So this was "mercifully" the end of "round one" of the Iran-Israeli showdown.
But both sides must be preparing for the next round, prompted by the next "intolerable" incident. The world is left to see when that blow will strike — and by whom.
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
