Written by the authors
Iran has entered a direct war with Israel “without gloves” in response to a strike on its embassy in Damascus. Despite Israeli claims to have shot down 99% of drones and missiles, Tehran has mastered playing on the edge of the abyss and measuring its steps. Well, a controlled and calculated withdrawal from the “policy of strategic patience” with Israel.
According to the report of the American newspaper The New York Times from Israeli officials, Iran continued to fire 185 drones of various types, 110 surface-to-surface missiles and 36 cruise missiles for 5 hours, mainly targeting military bases and structures, avoiding economic or civilian targets.
The American Politics website, for its part, said the attacks “brought the conflict between Iran and Israel out of the shadows and into the open and direct through proxies” and “will lead to a major escalation in the region.”
Israel did not release images of the Iranian attack, downplaying its significance, and Israeli military censorship completely obscured what happened. Iran, on the other hand, points out that the strikes have achieved their goals, but the Israeli media acknowledges that the aftermath of an Iranian strike will be a different phase than before.
Before the strike there was much speculation about its size and location. Iran may have responded symmetrically against Israeli interests abroad, Israeli naval targets, or bases outside of direct Israeli sovereignty, but it chose to respond directly in direct messages as well.
Before the strike, Washington was aware of the timing and extent of the strike from the US and neighboring countries – especially since Iran had adopted a policy of preempting the arrival of the US and neighboring countries. According to statements and reports from Iranian officials, the operation was informed 72 hours in advance.
Probability calculations and response ranges
Iran realized that the strike on the consulate in Damascus was an opportunity to directly respond not only to it, but to repeated Israeli attacks over the years. It gives Israel the green light to “lose its value” as a regional power. A strike would be politically, militarily and strategically less costly.
The response was based on rejecting the logic of “swallowing” an Israeli strike and not pursuing a policy of strategic patience, but was based on tactical and strategic factors and calculations, the most important of which were:
- The Iranian response to Israel came in the midst of the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip, and is therefore part of a conflict with Israel that is seen as direct involvement in defending the Palestinian cause.
- An Iranian response in light of the massacres perpetrated by Israel will be welcomed and supported by both the Iranian and Arab peoples.
- Failure to respond directly — especially in light of previous Iranian threats — would make Iran a target of public criticism and increase pressure on it.
- The Israeli strike on embassy headquarters and the assassination of Iranian leaders was a direct Israeli attack on the “axis of resistance” against Iran.
- Iran realizes that managing a war with Israel through an “oppositional axis” is unconvincing to many parties, especially as its allies in Syria, Yemen and Lebanon receive repeated strikes from the US and Israel.
- Considered Israel at its most vulnerable moment, sympathy for the course of the war on Gaza and the internal front disintegrated, and there was no Israeli military or political consensus on the strike on the embassy in Damascus, which was recorded as another. Defeat for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
- Iran has made strategic calculations that an attack against Israel now would be a blow to Netanyahu at a time when he is suffering from his worst situation in six months.
- There is a moment of deep suspicion between the administration of US President Joe Biden and the Israeli prime minister, and the US is not satisfied with the strike on the consulate in Damascus and Tel Aviv's persistence in the war on the Gaza Strip. Its activities in general.
- Iran hopes the U.S. will refrain from an uncalculated response to the strike, fearing it could slide into a regional war that Washington and Israel's allies don't want, and insist on supporting Israel.
- Apart from the war in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, Iran has suggested that a “green” logic prevails between itself and Israel as the international situation does not tolerate another full-scale war in a troubled region.
- Iran suggested that any Israeli retaliation – should it happen – would be calculated, targeted, manipulated and contained.
- Iran realizes that its direct intervention will create a new deterrence equation, entering another large and significant front into the conflict with Israel, whose precise calculations will be in the West.
A new equation and pressure on Israel
Analysts point out that the unprecedented Iranian attack on Israel establishes a new equation in the region, and it does not respond to Tehran or prevent its attack on Israel considering the conflict with Israel “Al-Aqsa flood” operation, which is considered a new wedge in the Israeli defense doctrine.
A direct Iranian response – regardless of its military impact – adds a strong threat to Israel's geographic depth, and with calculations of Iranian military power, any other attack could be too powerful and painful for Israel.
In the post-“al-Aqsa flood” equation, with the Iranian response, Israel has become a war zone on multiple fronts, with all the pressure on the home front, which no longer enjoys security relaxations. Time for the Israeli military machine to move in every direction.
The Iranian strike added to the series of security concerns that govern Israeli society, which no longer feels safe, especially after the “al-Aqsa flood” strike, and no longer believes in the proverbial “army protecting the people.” Ground stability seriously undermines theory and exacerbates the “great escape” trend.
According to Yedioth Ahronoth, lightning and limited wars are no longer an Israeli deterrent weapon, as Israel has entered a comprehensive war, which increases its economic losses, as the cost of preventing an Iranian attack alone is about 1.3 billion dollars. The newspaper estimated the losses for the “al-Aqsa flood” at over 70 billion.
The Iranian strike and its predecessor confirmed that the Israeli program still depended on the political, security, and military support of the great powers that had sponsored it, notably through the intervention of the United States and Britain, which shot down most of the missiles. Drones launched by Iran.
Israel's complex calculations
Many analysts ask to what extent the Israeli prime minister benefited this time from the Iranian strike to restore his internal and external image, especially since he has always linked the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) to Iran and portrayed the movement as one. its weapons in the region.
Observers hope that Netanyahu will return to the narrative of portraying Israel as a “victim” after the Iranian attack to gain new legitimacy within Israel, and especially to regain the sympathy of the US administration, but Israeli analysts believe he has completely lost it. Credibility after “strategic failure” in Gaza.
The American New York Times also noted that President Biden has lost faith in Netanyahu, and privately expressed his concern about Netanyahu's attempt to “draw America deeper, into a broader conflict.”
Analysts point out that the Israeli response to an Iranian attack will be governed by the US position and the calculations of Washington and President Joe Biden, which range from the sensitivity of the situation in the region to electoral calculations.
Citing official US sources, Axios reports that President Biden warned Netanyahu during a telephone conversation that the US would not participate with Israel in a counterattack against Iran.
Through the Swiss Embassy's Interests Section – As the US continues to engage with Iran, insisting that failure to contain the conflict could lead to a catastrophic situation in the region, officials in the region warn that escalation could lead to a wider situation. – Scaled War.
For its part, the British Observer newspaper noted that “the fate of the Middle East hangs in the air while Israel considers how to respond to an Iranian attack.”
The Telegraph newspaper drew attention to the possibility of an Israeli response to Iranian attacks, which could include airstrikes on military bases or government headquarters, or the headquarters of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or its possible presence around Iran. “Then both parties could cease hostilities, “each party having exacted its revenge.”
While Israeli officials are calling for a “major attack” on Iran, others believe that Israel should consider what happened last Saturday as a victory after all of Iran's missiles and drones were shot down without significant impact.
In light of international positions and US reluctance to escalate, Israel is in the dilemma of whether to “swallow” the strike, postpone it, or adapt it to the current situation. When Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant said during the occupation of Gaza, “This is a war that will end in Tehran,” it was a non-productive area.
