Iran strikes back. But how far?
An insightful analysis by Leonid Tsukanov, Iran's bold missile strike against Israel unfolds after months of tension, revealing the strategic calculations and power plays shaping the region's future.
After almost two months of preparation and promises, Iran launched a missile strike on Israeli territory.
According to official sources, about 180 ballistic missiles were launched in several waves from Iranian territory (although in the first hours of the operation, various newspapers and bloggers cited a figure of up to 600 warheads). The order to begin the operation was given personally by Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, which was supposed to emphasize the Iranians' determination and the lack of any behind-the-scenes agreements with the West.
The retaliatory operation was simply dubbed "True Promise – 2." Official Tehran responded to it after a series of Israeli successes against key figures of the "Axis of Resistance": the head of Hamas Ismail Haniyeh, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, and several dozen other commanders of lower rank were "packaged avenged".
It is noteworthy that at the start of the operation, official Tehran in a sense "mirrored" the Israeli tactics. The US and other foreign powers were notified through diplomatic channels about the start of the operation almost post factum - when the first missile launches occurred. Apparently, Washington was repaid for its "ignorance" of Tel Aviv's actions in the Lebanese direction.
Unlearned lessons
Despite the fact that Iran's retaliatory strike was predictable - and was, in fact, a matter of time, the Israeli side was somewhat relaxed. The lack of a prompt response to the deaths of Haniyeh and Nasrallah instilled confidence that Tehran was aiming to reset the dialogue with Washington – in exchange for regional concessions – and therefore would not defend the interests of the Resistance.
The results of the night strike also demonstrated that Tel Aviv had not learned the lessons of the April events – and had relied too heavily on the assistance of regional partners, as well as American and European contingents. However, in practice, it turned out that Israel’s “support group” had noticeably thinned out since the spring – not a single Arabian monarchy had joined in the defense of Israeli airspace; not even Bahrain and the UAE, which claim to be Tel Aviv’s strategic partners.
The European forces in the region also did not take a significant part, although France and Britain claim the opposite and have demonstrated their concern about the situation in every possible way.
The main burden of responsibility for supporting Israel’s air defense fell on the United States, which had to hastily deploy destroyers in the Mediterranean, and on Jordan – however, the latter concentrated exclusively on the defense of border areas and did not want to get into trouble.
The events of the previous night confirmed that Iran is quite well aware of the location of key Israeli military facilities – and, more importantly, is quite capable of breaking through the enemy’s air defenses without using a swarm of drones, as was the case in April. Although the claims about the damage caused vary greatly – for example, the Israelis deny the loss of more than 20 F-35 fighters (almost the entire forward air fleet) – the fact that Tel Aviv hit several air bases and communication hubs is not disputed.
Finally, Tehran conveniently used the moment for native advertising of its own defense industry, successfully using the Fattah hypersonic missile during the attack on the enemy, which a couple of months before had been ridiculed in the Israeli press and considered “Persian inventions”.
The circle of “decisive responses”
Perhaps the key task that Iran managed to solve with its attack was to demonstrate to Iranian society (and at the same time to the remaining leaders of proxy groups) Tehran’s readiness to escalate to protect its strategic interests. It was possible to immediately remove the brewing discontent with the reformist government headed by Masoud Pezeshkian and exclude the existence of behind-the-scenes agreements between Iran and the United States. In addition, it was very clearly demonstrated that the word of the Supreme Leader is immutable, and strategic guidelines are unshakable. Especially when it comes to protecting collective interests in the Middle East.
And although Tehran, apparently, failed to achieve a cumulative effect from the attack (since other members of the "Axis" did not join in the strikes), what happened clearly cooled the ardor of the Israelis - at least the level of bravado in relation to the balance of power has decreased over the past 24 hours.
However, official Tel Aviv was not in disarray for long - the Israeli government almost immediately returned to its previous rhetoric, promising a "significant and crushing response" to Tehran's actions. Similar assessments were made in Washington, noting that Iran had made an “unforgivable mistake.”
The desire of Israel and the US to "shake fists after the fight" is easy to explain. In the first case, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu needs to maintain a positive information background around the conflict with Tehran and the public's conviction that Tel Aviv is "leading" in this confrontation.
For the US, the escalating conflict in the Middle East is important in terms of preparing for a new electoral cycle. It does not matter who wins the election, the Republicans or the Democrats, each side will be able to turn the "Iranian threat" in its own way. For the Democrats, it will become a convenient basis for building a collective defense system in the Middle East - to counter the growing influence of Tehran; for the Republicans - a reason to tighten the "sanctions screws" and refuse to reset the dialogue.
At the same time, the next "decisive responses" from Tehran and Tel Aviv to each other's attacks will be more of a background character. Each side will seek to use the fears of the opponent to consolidate the new status quo in the region.
I find it interesting that Iran's attack followed on the heels of missile launches by Russia & China. Remember, the three are united in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a strategic, defensive alliance. A rumor that, in response to talk of sending missiles to Russia's interior, a projectile streaked over the Naval base in Bellingham, Washington State creating shock waves like sonic boom, then earth quake shocks registering on the Richter Scale, seemed to produce an abrupt dismissal of the idea in U $a. Then just a few days later, China launched a missile test that flew over Guam culminating in a huge explosion. Then in just a few days, Iran launched its long-awaited retaliatory strike on military sites in Israel. To my mind, the message couldn't be more clear. We are united, we are watching, & we have weapons you don't have. Sometimes it takes time for such a message to penetrate the entrenched thinking of the exceptionalist hegemon but surely someone gets it.