2024-04-22 21:58:00
Strikes attributed to Israel hit a residential area in Damascus, Syria, on April 1, 2024, destroying the Iranian embassy annex using six missiles fired by F-35s. The annex serves as the Iranian consulate, according to Tehran. Among the 11 victims of the attack were General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard for Syria and Lebanon, and one of his deputies, General Mohammad Hadi Haji Rahimi.
Iran considered the strikes against the Iranian consulate as the first open attack on its territories, and as a crisis that Tehran must respond to or risk losing all credibility with its allies and proxies, first of all, and the world. Indeed, according to Tehran, Tel Aviv has crossed the thresholds under which a strategy of patience could support or maintain a strategy.
This is how two weeks later, on the night of April 13 to 14, Iran responded by sending about 300 drones and missiles into Israeli territory, and Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Jordan intercepted and destroyed almost all of them. before he even reached the territory of Israel.
After assessing the consequences and scope of its attack on Israel, Iran announced two main features:
– Tehran did not use the sufficient number or the appropriate quality of weapons to cause great damage to the territory and people of Israel, and its aim was only to convey the message of strength to Israel and its allies, no escalation in conflict,
– Iran announces that it has moved from “strategic patience” to a “deterrence strategy”, ending Israel’s monopoly in the region. Iran announces that any action taken by Israel against Tehran’s interests from now on, no matter how small, will be met with an appropriate response.
This reported turnaround suggests a shift in how Iran approaches perceived threats and strategic challenges from Israel.
Therefore Iran’s decision may have been motivated by a combination of these two factors:
– on the one hand, the evolution of the Israeli threat, from the destruction of Iranian military equipment or strategic buildings abroad, to the assassination of prominent military figures in what is considered Iranian territory. Israel would thus have gone so far as to attack a symbol of the sovereignty of the Persian state and,
– on the other hand, the feeling, which is increasingly developed among the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that they have the ability and the means to enable the response, especially in view of the performance of the drones used in Ukraine and the resources ballistic developed in Ukraine. in recent years, mainly in cooperation with North Korea and, to a lesser extent, with Russia and China.
Other factors could push Iran into a new era in its strategy:
– in relation to its relations with its proxies, Iran has always made its sprawling arms in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen fuses that melt in the event of a high voltage current, to preserve the Iranian lamp. Tehran, which pressures its proxies to take more action against Israel, to support Hamas in Gaza and expose itself more to retaliation from Israel and its allies, cannot wait without taking action on the ground to encourage more confidence in his armed forces in the region. The Islamic Republic also had to participate in the war effort carried out by the Resistance Front, within the framework of what Tehran calls the unity of the fronts,
– Iran’s manipulation of its only proxies to protect its interests tarnishes its image until it is a state with the ability to do harm (proxies qualified as terrorists) rather than a state with power he doesn’t care. Since the war against Iraq, Iran, which destabilizes the entire region and declares itself a “military” power, has never directly intervened in the crises it provokes,
– according to Tehran, the latest attack by Israel targeted a building that was considered Iranian territory. It is therefore not the duty of militias or foreign entities to protect what is considered to be Iranian soil.
Iran, therefore, declares loud and clear that the era in which it suffered several provocations from Israel without a direct and strong response is over and that, from now on, every provocation from Israel would result in an immediate, strong response. However, two questions remain unanswered:
– does Tehran have the means for its policy? According to the experts, the conclusion of the examination of the carcasses of missiles that fell on Israeli territory is that these engines are manufactured according to old and outdated models, going so far as to confirm that they are only SCUDs improved for their increasing loads, the nature of their fuel and the weight of their cabin, on the one hand, and technologically enhanced by GPS and radar jamming systems, on the other hand,
– Will Israel be alone in the confrontation with Iran and to what extent could the latter rely on international allies such as Russia? It is very difficult to compare the solidarity of the West with Israel, mainly Americans, with the solidarity that Russia and even less China could maintain towards Iran.
A real change in strategy or a simple ad effect? The answer will certainly not be long in coming, it will depend on Tel Aviv’s decision to respond or not and also on the scope and nature of this response.
*University, Senior Fellow or Policy Center for the New South
#strategic #patience #deterrence #strategy