PR Maneuver?
The ineffectiveness of the attack led to speculation that Iran only intended a public relations maneuver using military means. Former NATO Secretary General George Robertson said in Vienna that Iran’s attack was a “dramatic escalation,” but that Tehran clearly did not want to score a hit. Other experts speculated that it was a test attack by Iran to assess the capabilities of Israel’s air defense. Several Arab states had been informed of the attack days before the attack, including US allies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which promptly passed on this information.
The fact that Hezbollah only half-heartedly participated in the attack also speaks against any great Iranian belligerence. The British Middle East and security expert HA Hellyer sees the attack as more of a symbolic act: “The intention was to make a scene.” In fact, Iranian government forces confirmed on Sunday that their counterattack on Israel had ended, and the regime-affiliated “Tehran Times ” explained in an initial analysis: “In this attack, Iran used its less advanced weapons in relatively small quantities. He also ensured that no infrastructure or civilian targets would be hit in this operation. Iranian army leaders have clearly stated that they have no interest in war and that this attack was intended to send a message to Israel.”
US military expert Daniel Davis explained in an interview with Hamburg’s “Spiegel”: “The Iranians targeted military regions and used weapons that they knew Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ missile defense system would intercept. So Iran wanted to retaliate, but from my point of view with the intention of ending the matter. The question now is whether Israel’s prime minister will accept it that way.”
Netanyahu’s restraint
But even if Iran held back, such an attack could not be without consequences. Former chiefs of staff Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot are said to have urged the Israeli war cabinet for an immediate counterattack, as a sign of strength, but also to forestall the foreseeable international discussions about the appropriateness of a military response. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu waited. Contrary to his image in Europe, the Israeli prime minister often acts hesitantly when it comes to using military means against external enemies. About the limited strike on Friday morning near Isfahan, the right-wing extremist security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said succinctly on the short message service X: “Weak!” Ben-Gvir had previously called for “a devastating reaction”.
But Netanyahu announced a “smart” response after a war cabinet meeting on Tuesday. He will continue to do so in the future. A nuclear strike on Iran is ruled out, as is a bombardment of major cities with rockets and fighter-bombers. This could be fatal. Because Iran’s air defense is not comparable to Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ system. However, Israel will want to avoid casualties among the Iranian civilian population. The many deaths among the Palestinian population in the Gaza war have tarnished Israel’s image internationally. The Iranian attack, on the other hand, brought the government back a lot of sympathy, although this could quickly be lost. Therefore, attacks on Iran’s civilian infrastructure such as power plants or refineries are ruled out, as civilians could also die. In addition, this would inevitably lead to a war between Israel and Iran. However, Israel’s military capacities are already stretched to capacity with operations in Gaza and defense against rocket attacks from Lebanon by Hezbollah, which is allied with Iran. An open conflict with Iran would overextend Israel.
If the war cabinet decides to launch another attack, it could target military infrastructure and the bunkers where Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Their situation has long been clarified by the Israeli intelligence services. However, for destruction, special bunker-busting aerial bombs with high penetrating power are necessary, which only the USA probably has. Israel also probably doesn’t have the appropriate aircraft to drop such bombs. Covert operations against representatives of the Iranian regime have been carried out regularly in the past, even on Iranian territory. The targets were mostly scientists, engineers and military personnel involved in the nuclear weapons program.
Attack on Revolutionary Guards
A “smart” response could also be to attack Iranian facilities outside Iran, such as Revolutionary Guard bases in Syria. They are probably already on heightened alert. An attack on high-ranking Iranian military officials in Syria was also the trigger for the current air strike. On April 1, Israeli fighter jets fired missiles at the Iranian consulate in Damascus. High-ranking officers of the Revolutionary Guards, including General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, died. Iran accused Israel of breaking the rules of their shadow war by attacking a diplomatic building. Religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei announced that “the evil Zionist regime will be punished at the hands of our brave men. We will make them repent for this and other crimes.” A poster was hung in Tehran with a picture of General Zahedi and the message – in Persian and Hebrew: “You will be punished and you will regret it.”
Israel argued that the attack did not kill diplomats but rather terrorist military officers whose goal was the destruction of Israel. They would therefore be a legitimate target. It can be assumed that Israel will try to target other high-ranking officers of the Revolutionary Guard in the next few weeks. It is also suspected that Israel will not strike back militarily, but digitally. Such cyber attacks have already been carried out, for example on nuclear facilities and industrial companies. A soft response would have been limited to diplomatic measures. Israel is trying to ensure that the Islamic Republic becomes even more isolated internationally. Foreign Minister Israel Katz has already called on EU states to declare the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.
The New York Times speculated that Israel might limit itself to attacking a key symbolic target in Iran. CNN reported, based on intelligence sources in the region, that the direct confrontation between Israel and Iran was over with the air strike near Isfahan.
Bidens Appell
The “smart” measures have something in common: They would probably have been carried out by Israel even without the Iranian air strike or would have gone unnoticed publicly. That’s why some in Netanyahu’s cabinet are calling for a tough response with a resounding public impact. It is the basic rule of the Middle East conflict: a strike is followed by a counter-strike. Anything else would be an expression of weakness. The ultranationalists in the current Israeli government want to use the opportunity to escalate. Itamar Ben-Gvir has already spoken of Israel having to “run amok”.
From the American perspective, restraint does not mean weakness, but rather reason. US officials made it clear that they were against a massive military response. The US military would also not support Israel in this. The day after the attack, US President Biden advised Benjamin Netanyahu to see the almost complete destruction of the Iranian missiles as a success.
However, it is probably not just security considerations that determine the Prime Minister’s actions, but his own political will to survive. Netanyahu was under heavy domestic political pressure in the months before Hamas’ attack on Israel and the subsequent Gaza war. He has three corruption cases on his hands and his cynical push for comprehensive judicial reform triggered the largest domestic political protest movement in recent decades: hundreds of thousands demonstrated for his removal for months. Michael Oren, a former Knesset member and Israeli ambassador to the United States, told the New Yorker magazine that Netanyahu “seems unable to distinguish between personal and political interests.”
Israel’s internal insecurity, which was manifested in Netanyahu, may also have been a factor in the surprise success of the Hamas attacks on October 7th. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said in January: “Israel has divided itself and weakened its immune system. Our enemy recognized this and attacked.”
Pressure on mullahs
The mullahs in Tehran are also under pressure domestically. The West’s long-standing sanctions have dramatically weakened the country’s economy, the leadership is unpopular with the population, and tens of thousands protested for regime change despite massive repression. In the long term, for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his President Ebrahim Raisi, a normalization of the situation in the Middle East – for example through a solution to the Palestinian conflict and a further normalization of Israel’s relations with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states – would be a strategic mishap that must be prevented.
A further counterattack by Israel with civilian casualties would probably lead to large parts of the Iranian population rallying behind their own leadership. From an Israeli perspective, tactical considerations would therefore speak against further measures. A – albeit narrow – majority of Israelis think defensively anyway. According to a survey by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 52 percent of the population say Israel should refrain from retaliating in order to end the current spiral of violence. 48 percent think Israel should strike back even at the cost of escalating the conflict. However, a clear majority is against Israel going it alone. 74 percent reject a counterstrike if it damages the security alliance with the USA, Great Britain, France and moderate Arab states such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. There is now speculation about some kind of compromise deal. Israel renounces a further, massive counterattack against the Islamic Republic of Iran and in return receives carte blanche from the USA for its operational plans in Rafah in the south of the Gaza Strip.
In the pediatric intensive care unit of the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba in the Negev Desert, the Bedouin girl Amina, a Muslim, fought for her life last Thursday.