Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Kirill Semenov
[REGNUM] Iran launched multiple drones and missiles at Israel on Saturday evening. The strike was in response to an Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus on April 1, which killed several Iranian officers, including a senior general in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC). This event pushed the Middle East one step further towards a full-scale regional war.
Iranian officials said the shelling of Israel was launched to defend the Islamic Republic's "sovereignty and territorial integrity" and that the attack, which involved "dozens" of missiles and drones, targeted Israeli military bases.
"MISSION COMPLETE"
The IRGC-affiliated Tasnim news agency described the retaliatory strike on Israel as a "multi-layered attack from four directions" that involved "hundreds of drones and a large number of missiles of various types." According to the agency, the attack involved the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Islamic Resistance of Iraq and the Houthis from the Yemeni Ansar Allah movement. Hezbollah, in particular, said it fired dozens of rockets at Israeli barracks in the Golan Heights.
“The mission is accomplished, the operation is over, and we have no intention of going further,” said Major General Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, thereby removing any questions about the possible continuation of the attacks.
But if Israel decides to “ commit any action against us, whether on our territory or at our facilities in Syria and other places, the next operation will be larger,” the Iranian general emphasized.
The strikes themselves were larger than might have been expected. Tehran probably hopes that if Israel again decides to attack any Iranian targets in Syria, it will now think twice.
It is obvious that the IDF attacked the Iranian consulate on April 1 not in order to involve the United States in the conflict or for other complex combinations, but simply because Tel Aviv ceased to be aware of the consequences of any of its actions, without noticing how it crossed the red line, every for a week, inflicting more and more attacks on Syria, believing that it can continue to do this with impunity.
As much as the Iranian attack may be viewed by skeptics in terms of its military objectives, politically it has unprecedented significance.
Finally, the Iranian leadership has overcome its own fear of direct attacks on Israel and lifted some of the restrictions that it had once imposed on itself. There were fears that any attack could escalate into a region-wide conflict and into a full-scale war between Iran and Israel and the United States. This time, Tehran was obviously ready for any consequences and began to play for higher stakes.
Of course, the circumstances against which this attack took place were also important.
On the one hand, this is the benevolent attitude towards Iran of its former regional opponents in the person of the same Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, obviously, will not support any retaliatory actions by the United States and Israel against Iran and has already called on all parties to show restraint, although a few years ago it itself would not have been averse to joining in retaliatory strikes. Most Arab states, including Egypt and Qatar, took a similar position.
On the other hand, events in Gaza are forcing Iran to act more harshly and assertively than before. The “Arab” and even “Islamic” street is now more likely to be on the side of Tehran than against it, and any retaliatory actions by Israel and the United States could cause waves of protests in Arab countries calling on their governments to support the Islamic Republic, the only Muslim country that dared to challenge the direct challenge Israel and the US and support Gaza.
It is now obvious that the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, in addition to fierce resistance from Hamas itself, was also due to the Israeli command’s fears for its northern borders, where attacks by pro-Iranian forces were also expected. Another question is that nothing prevents the Israelis from returning and resuming the offensive on the same Rafah, but it will be conducted in much more difficult conditions, after losing control over other areas of Gaza.
In a word, Tehran should have taken advantage of the window of opportunity provided, and it took advantage of it.
But what is also obvious is that Iran carried out the attack in such a way as to leave the possibility for Israel to refrain from responding, at least if it directly concerns attacks on Iranian territory.
IRAN PROBABLY WARNED ISRAEL
In this context, interesting are reports that Tehran notified neighboring countries about the upcoming attack on Israel 72 hours before it began.
This was stated by the head of the Iranian Foreign Ministry. In turn, Israeli officials, in response to questions from Arab media, neither confirmed nor denied that Iran had informed Israel about the nature and timing of its attack.
An independent expert in the field of conflicts in Africa and the Middle East, Anton Mardasov, agrees with this, who told Regnum news agency : “ On the one hand, Iran provided the maximum, essentially a limited strike with “special effects” - wave launches of loitering ammunition, drone illumination, boosters on cruise missiles, etc. On the other hand, Israel's allies not only received time to prepare ground infrastructure, but, obviously, information about timing for organizing air duty. The system of such “warning” is not new - it is known that during Iran’s last attack on an American base after the liquidation of Soleimani, information about the nature and time of the attack was transmitted to the United States through Iraqi and Qatari intermediaries.”
On Friday, just a day before the Iranian strike, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant and senior military officers met with the head of US Central Command at an airbase in Israel, where they discussed plans to defend Israel, as if they already knew the attack was imminent and when it would begin.
And ahead of the attack late Saturday, the Israeli military announced restrictions on public gatherings and school closures, and ordered people in the occupied Golan Heights in the north and several areas in the south to stay close to shelters.
Also on Saturday, Britain sent RAF planes and tankers to the Middle East to help intercept drone attacks. The fact that British pilots shot down “several” Iranian drones was confirmed on Sunday by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
In turn, US President Joe Biden condemned the “unprecedented” attack and said that US aircraft and two US destroyers, one of which Washington deployed to the region last week, helped intercept the attack.
"Through the deployment and exceptional skill of our troops, we helped Israel destroy nearly all incoming drones and missiles," Biden said.
France also provided assistance to Israel in repelling the attack.
RECONNAISSANCE IN FORCE
Israeli officials confirmed that Iran fired more than 300 air delivery vehicles, 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles and 120 ballistic missiles. Israel also confirmed that Iran's regional allies in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen also launched missiles and drones at Israel.
Daniel Hagari, a spokesman for the Israeli military, said that 99 percent of the missiles and drones were intercepted. A Bedouin girl was seriously wounded by shrapnel in the south and an air force base "sustained minor damage" but there were no other reports of serious damage, he said.
However, the data presented by Israel seems to be largely exaggerated, especially when it comes to ballistic missiles.
Thus, on April 13-14, some of the drones and missiles were shot down by the American Air Force and air defense systems over Iraq, another part was shot down over Jordan by local air defense systems, US and British aviation, another part was intercepted by the IDF Air Force over Syria, and only then did Israeli layered air defense and missile defense systems operate.
"Arrow" is a long-range system focused primarily on intercepting ballistic missiles, followed by "David's Sling" - a medium-range anti-missile system, and next in line is "Iron Dome", designed to intercept missiles, including MLRS shells, shorter range. In addition, the American Patriot air defense systems are also in service with Israel.
Israel's entire missile defense/air defense system was created with direct assistance from the United States, which has provided $3.4 billion in funding for Israeli missile defense since 2009.
According to Mardasov, it is noteworthy that several missiles still managed to break through the defenses and hit the Nevatim base without causing significant damage to it, which, by the way, raises the question of the nature of the missiles equipped with warheads.
At the same time, the expert emphasizes, “ the Iranians not only gained experience in a massive attack and assessed in practice the real mechanism for connecting the United States, Great Britain, and Jordan to repel an attack, but also worked out purely technical actions - timing, formation routes, targeted cyber attacks, etc. ”
Also, as Mardasov noted, it is possible that the attack by some UAVs and missiles that were fired by Iranian proxy forces from Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon was more of a spontaneous support rather than a coordinated action.
By striking from its territory, Iran not only demonstrated its determination to directly attack Israel, but also actually diverted its allies along the “axis of resistance” from a serious Israeli counterattack on their positions.
However, their participation, albeit small and uncoordinated, could also enable Israel to respond to this attack without resorting directly to an attack on Iranian territory, thereby keeping the escalation under control without abandoning retaliatory actions.
Although this will contradict the rules of Tel Aviv, which, even if it takes asymmetrical retaliatory actions, their asymmetry is manifested precisely in more massive retaliation than the reason itself.
REPLY TO REPLY
American publications note that the Israeli Prime Minister allegedly refused a retaliatory strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
However, despite further conclusions that the White House managed to persuade Tel Aviv from retaliating, the fact that the emphasis was placed specifically on nuclear facilities makes us assume that the Israeli leadership is still considering the possibility of launching a strike directly on Iranian territory. but for other, non-nuclear facilities.
In addition, there may be other asymmetric response scenarios.
Earlier in a statement on Saturday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to signal that a military response was likely: “ We have established a clear principle: whoever harms us, we will harm them. We will protect ourselves from any threat."
Netanyahu added that any response "will be measured."
Moreover, hardliners in Israel have already demanded drastic measures, and if Netanyahu abstains, he may lose his last allies.
“ We need a crushing attack [on Iran],” Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s ultranationalist minister of national security, wrote on social media.
It is also interesting that Israeli statements also included accusations against Iran of a different kind, namely that Tehran supplies Russia with weapons. These statements indicate a strengthening of the axis between Israel and its European and American allies.
“Iran’s attack on Israel, its threats against the United States and the supply of weapons to Russia threaten world peace,” said Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Lior Hayat.
NEW REALITY
Until now, Iran and Israel have avoided direct confrontation. Despite their long history of rivalry, the two countries have never engaged in a confrontation involving strikes launched from their own territory on their own behalf.
Although Western sources indicate that once - in 2018 - Iranian forces based in Syria opened fire on Israel in response to IDF shelling of Syrian territory. But even here, questions remain about the affiliation of these units, which most likely were not Iranian after all, but belonged to the IRGC-backed Shiite jihadist groups.
Therefore, the Middle East finds itself in a new reality, where all lines of development of escalation are now difficult to predict and at each turn there is a risk of “falling into a tailspin,” that is, into an uncontrollable spiral.
Indeed, until recently, the very possibility of a direct attack by Iran on Israeli territory seemed unlikely. Thus, the escalation has already reached a new critical level.
If Israel decides to strike at Iranian territory, this is the riskiest scenario, which could lead to an even more massive response from Tehran.
Iran will then most likely act without warning and strike in such a way as to make interception of targets more difficult rather than easier.
This could provoke a new stage of the “sea war,” as Iran has already made clear by seizing another tanker in the Strait of Hormuz in anticipation of the attack. It is also possible that Hezbollah will increase its activity on the northern borders of Israel and the Islamic Resistance of Iraq on the Golan.
At the same time, Israel, in response to the Iranian attack, can itself inflict more massive attacks on the Lebanese Hezbollah forces than before, avoiding an attack on Iranian territory.
In addition, Tel Aviv here may not limit itself to just air attacks, but launch a full-scale ground operation against Iranian allies, for which it has everything ready. This is what could have prompted Netanyahu to withdraw his troops from Gaza in order to use them in operations against Hezbollah.
NETANYAHU'S TWO TASKS
The specter of the October 7th attacks will continue to loom over Israel, and Hezbollah's military capabilities now appear to be a permanent sword raised over the Jewish state, ready to repeat October 7th on a larger scale.
Here Netanyahu solves two problems at once.
Namely, the prolongation of the activities of the military government, with which the very future of the Israeli prime minister is connected, seeking to avoid criminal prosecution and resignation, and a shift in emphasis from Gaza, where IDF operations have reached a dead end.
Now, in order to abandon plans for the complete destruction of Hamas, a weighty argument may arise in the form of the need to respond to Iranian attacks. Naturally, this option could lead to a new round of escalation and force Iran to more actively support its ally. And this already risks drawing Israel’s European and American allies into the conflict.
In addition, the issue of the attack on Rafah has not been removed from the agenda, despite the IDF’s withdrawal from Gaza.
Finally, another scenario could involve attacks on Iranian allies without the use of ground forces.
In themselves, limited strikes on Iranian proxies in the region are no longer something new, but this will avoid a new Iranian response if the Iranians themselves do not come under attack. But even the more massive nature of these attacks is unlikely to suit Tel Aviv as an “act of retaliation,” although it will avoid escalation, and, apparently, this is the response that the Americans and Europeans will try to persuade the Israelis to respond to.
***
In any case, it should be considered that from Iran's perspective, the question is whether the equation of escalation and de-escalation has fundamentally changed.
If the Iranians truly implement a new policy whereby from now on any Israeli strike against Iranian personnel and assets will be met with a significant direct response aimed at Israeli territory, perhaps a new formula for containing Israel is now being born, which, however, could lead the entire region to a full-scale conflict.
But in any case, the United States will likely encourage Israel to respond with restraint and make efforts to prevent an escalating regional war.
|
In turn, captain 1st rank reserve, military expert Vasily Dandykin pointed out that there were conflicting reports about the course of events. The Israeli side claims that 99% of Iranian missiles and drones were shot down, which is similar to the rhetoric of the Kyiv regime, which also claimed the almost complete destruction of Russian missiles by Ukrainian air defenses, despite the fact that the Russian Armed Forces are effectively hitting Ukrainian targets. The Iranian side claims that there were successful hits on the target.
...a theocratic Shiite state divided among the Medes, the Persians, and the (Arab) Elamites. Formerly a fairly civilized nation ruled by a Shah, it became a victim of Islamic revolution in 1979. The nation is today noted for 
...
...