The Islamic Republic of Iran ultimately exacted its revenge and launched over three hundred drones and missiles towards Israelis. Analysts did not doubt the retaliatory nature of the attack from Iran, but the decision to opt for a costly option instead of less expensive alternatives was unforeseen for many. Despite appearing heavy-handed, the attack, according to media reports, did not result in significant casualties due to interception by Israeli defense systems and its allies, albeit not entirely successful. President Biden acknowledged that Iran’s strikes on Israeli military installations were unprecedented but confirmed U.S. support in countering drones and missiles targeting Tel Aviv.
When considering Israel’s attack on Iran’s consulate and the subsequent retaliatory response, two questions emerge:
- Why did Tehran opt for the costly option?
Before addressing this question, it’s crucial to highlight two key points:
Firstly, the Islamic Republic didn’t want to let the Gaza crisis go unnoticed, as it has become a weak point for Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. In the past, Israel has engaged in numerous wars with its neighbors, occupied vast territories, and inflicted heavy losses on its adversaries but has not faced such global pressure in recent months. Even the United States, as Israel’s strategic ally, has expressed severe discontent, reducing its support. Public opinion in the Western world is also turning against Israel, as evidenced by candidates in American elections shifting from overt support to acknowledging Palestinian rights. The reason is clear: the killing of over 33,000 civilians in Gaza through Israeli airstrikes and ground attacks. Thus, escalating threats from Iran against Israel benefit Netanyahu’s government as Western nations stand beside it, possibly overshadowing the Gaza crisis. Tehran may have overlooked this consideration, believing that the equation in the Gaza conflict wouldn’t change.
Secondly, despite its small size in terms of population and geography, Israel holds a superior military position in the region. Arab states have attempted confrontations with Israel but ended up conceding and eventually recognizing it. Israel has consistently emerged victorious in wars with states because of its considerable military power and unwavering support from the West, especially the United States. More importantly, experience has shown that if one rocket hits its soil, Israel responds with a thousand, expanding the concept of legitimate defense. Iran, perhaps, presumed its sacrifices would deter others, and Israel’s previous lack of serious response reinforced this perception.
The most significant factor motivating the Islamic Republic’s attack on Israeli soil is the pursuit of “deterrence” capability, meaning keeping Tel Aviv wary and preventing Tehran’s interests from being targeted again in the region, especially in Syria. It’s not a firm assertion that Iran accepted this risk solely due to the sentiments of its supporters. Iran believed that employing other options wouldn’t yield the desired deterrent effect. However, it remains unclear whether this attack will create deterrence. Only time will tell the efficacy of the response.
The tool that has plowed the ground for Iran’s attack on Israel is diplomacy. Until Iran showed no reaction, the diplomatic wheel was in motion. Oman, which acts as a messenger between the US and Iran, once again mediated between the two sides. Foreign ministers of major Western governments supporting Israel contacted Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, the Iranian Foreign Minister, urging Iranian restraint. For example, Annalena Baerbock, the German Foreign Minister, had a phone conversation with Amir-Abdollahian for over 90 minutes. Even the US sought Iranian restraint through Turkish, Saudi, and Chinese channels. Western media’s real-time reports on Iran’s attack before its execution were noteworthy. Even Biden claimed that the Islamic Republic of Iran would attack very soon, which turned out to be accurate. Israel, considering an attack on its soil a red line, tactfully awaited legitimate defense, a departure from its previous approach. As of now, there is no sign of Israel’s reaction. The Iranian side’s stance also raises questions. Fabricating an attack and announcing its timing and nature before any outcome is achieved is provocative.
Reflecting on the above points vividly illustrates the role of diplomacy; namely, Western governments, especially the US, might have signaled a green light for a limited and low-damage response from Iran. In the past, an attack on Israeli soil was a “taboo” for them, and they swiftly engaged in serious defense of Tel Aviv, portraying it as victorious. The Iranian side admitted that the attack was launched in a limited and punitive manner. Western governments’ response after the attack was not very serious, and even the US cautioned the Israeli side against launching a retaliatory attack, a message that might have reached the Iranian side beforehand.
- Iran’s response to Israel: the beginning of a crisis or its end?
If we judge Israel’s past behavior as a benchmark, it should respond, and even more strongly than the blow it has received. But if it remains silent, it will be influenced by several factors:
Firstly, Israel attacked the consulate of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Syria and eliminated some Iranian advisors, which, according to international custom, a consulate represents the sovereignty of the country it represents. Thus, Israel initiated the first strike, for which it has now received a response.
Secondly, despite the apparent severity, Iran’s attack on Israeli soil, according to reports, resulted in minimal casualties and damages. Perhaps this will dissuade Tel Aviv from contemplating a retaliatory attack, which again deviates from its past practice.
Thirdly, the Netanyahu government is deeply embroiled in the Gaza crisis and essentially does not want to open a new and active front against itself. For example, if Israel targets Iranian soil, given the potential damage from it, there is no guarantee that it will not lead to a full-scale war. In that case, the Israeli side also suffers losses.
Fourthly, Iran currently refrains from direct engagement in a war with any country, especially Israel. Placing Israel’s soil under attack after intense diplomatic traffic has been influenced by the factors mentioned above. Therefore, it seeks to put a lid on the conflict at this point.
Fifthly, the United States, as Israel’s most serious supporter, seeks an end to the crisis because it cannot afford to fight simultaneously in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. The American side has repeatedly stated that it will not engage in direct war with Iran. The Israeli side has also been warned against attacking Iranian soil without prior coordination, meaning that if an attack is planned, it must be limited and coordinated to avoid escalating the war zone.
The reality is that for the Biden administration, victory in the Ukraine war matters more than throwing its support behind Israel once again in the Middle East quagmire. Biden also intends to contain Russia and China by handing over Afghanistan to the Taliban. These days, Ukraine is in turmoil, influenced by America’s preoccupation in the Middle East due to its support for Israel. Europeans are also in a predicament and fear that America may withdraw from the Ukraine war, leaving them alone to bear the responsibility for advancing the war. Therefore, advancing two wars simultaneously and successfully navigating through both is difficult for Western governments, and they have no choice but to either silence the current crisis in the Middle East if they cannot extinguish it, at least prevent it from further escalation, even at the cost of Israel’s displeasure.