"The matter can be deemed concluded," Iran's mission to the United Nations said in a post on X just a few hours after it fired more than 300 drones and missiles in retaliation of Israel's alleged attack on April 1 on Iranian consulate in Damascus, the capital of Syria, killing seven officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including two senior commanders.
However, the impression that Israel and Iran have got even and are back from a dangerous brink could be a gross misreading of the event. With its direct attack on Israel, Iran has crossed a thick red line since both the countries had always avoided direct military engagement despite Iran's support to a long-drawn proxy wars in Israel's neighbourhood in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen where Iran supports militant groups, notably Hezbollah and the Houthis, which have been in armed conflict with Israel.
Importantly, in the wake of Iran's recent missile and drone attacks on Israel, US President Joe Biden has privately expressed grave concerns about the possibility of a "catastrophic escalation" in the hostilities between Israel and Iran. Senior US defense officials have relayed their fears that Israel's potential retaliatory measures against Iran could lead to an uncontrollable escalation in the region.
Interpreting Iran's strike on Israel
Iran says the attack was in response to an airstrike widely blamed on Israel that destroyed what Iran says were consular offices in Syria and killed two generals with its paramilitary Revolutionary Guard earlier this month.
Israel said almost all the over 300 drones and missiles launched overnight by Iran were shot down by its anti-missile defense system, backed by the US and Britain. The sole reported casualty was a wounded girl in southern Israel, and a missile struck an Israeli airbase, causing light damage. Still, the chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard called the operation successful.
Iran has managed to strike a balance between retaliating publicly for the strike in Damascus and avoiding provoking further Israeli military action at least initially, which could lead to a much wider conflict, Mona Yacoubian, vice president of the Middle East and North Africa center at the U.S. Institute of Peace, told AP. “Both (Iran and Israel) are able at this point to claim victory and step down off the precipice, particularly since there were no Israeli civilians killed,” Yacoubian said.
Analysts say Iran sent a message that it would be willing to escalate and change its rules of engagement in its shadow war with Israel. “It’s a warning shot, saying that if Israel breaks the rules, there are consequences,” Magnus Ranstorp, strategic adviser at the Swedish Defense University, told AP.
Experts have suggested that Saturday's slow-moving drone attack was calibrated to represent a show of power but also allow some wiggle room. Many think Iran's strike was designed to cause minimum damage to lives. "It appears that Iran telegraphed its attack on Israel to demonstrate it can strike using different capabilities to complicate the (Israeli army's) ability to neutralise the assault but also to provide an off ramp to pause escalation," Nishank Motwani, senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Washington, told AFP.
What is coming next?
The wider interpretation of the Iranian strike as a middle ground between retaliation and severe damage might suggest that Israel too would be less willing to strike back at Iran, given the Iranian strike was unable to cause much harm to Israel, with only minor damage inflicted on one base.
As leading countries in the world ask both sides to exercise restraint, Prez Biden warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the US will not take part in a counter-offensive against Iran, if Israel decides to retaliate. The US will continue to help Israel defend itself but does not want war, John Kirby, the White House’s top national security spokesperson, told ABC’s “This Week” program on Sunday.
There were reports that the Israeli war cabinet was unable to decide whether to carry out a retaliatory strike on iran. An hours-long war cabinet meeting ended Sunday night without a decision about how Israel would respond.
There is a view that Israel struck at the Iranian consulate in Damascus to trigger Iranian retaliation and pull the US into a consequent wider conflict. Netanyahu could have resorted to this tactic in order to take the world's attention away from Gaza. If that's true, Israel might try to escalate the conflict.
Also, Netanyahu, who has faced public anger for failing to check the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and then to free all the kidnapped civilians, may not afford to not respond to the unprecedented Iranian strike. In case of the lack of backing from the US and other major countries for a full-blown strike on Iran, Netanyahu might find other options to punish Iran such as forceful attacks on Iran-backed militants in Syria and Lebanon or strikes on Iran's military installations.
Though Iran has said its retaliation has "concluded" and Israel hasn't yet shown any willingness to strike back, the fact that can't be ignored is that the strikes have changed the equation between the two countries: for the first time, Iran has mounted a direct attack on Israel. This turn can take the two countries to a dangerous terrain where attacking each other directly in future becomes a ready option. The strike has thrown the possibility of a full-blown war between the two countries wide open though when, where and how remain moot points.
No comments:
Post a Comment