On Saturday night, April 13th, 2024, Iran initiated a significant aerial assault against Israel, marking the first direct military action from Iranian soil against Israeli territory. This unprecedented attack, dubbed “Operation True Promise” by Iran, involved a barrage of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones launched towards Israel. This action was framed by Iran as retaliation for a suspected Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus on April 1st, which resulted in the death of several Iranian military officials, including a high-ranking commander. To understand the gravity of this event, it’s crucial to delve into the motivations behind Iran’s decision to launch this attack and its broader implications for the already volatile Middle East.
The Timeline and Scale of Iran’s Attack
The attack commenced around 8:00 PM GMT on Saturday and extended for approximately five hours. Cities across Israel, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, experienced explosions and air raid sirens, disrupting daily life and underscoring the widespread nature of the assault. According to Israeli military spokesperson Daniel Hagari, the offensive comprised over 120 ballistic missiles, 170 drones, and more than 30 cruise missiles. This multi-pronged approach was designed to overwhelm Israeli air defenses and inflict significant damage.
An Israeli Air Force F-15 Eagle fighter jet at an airbase, reflecting Israel’s preparedness and defense capabilities.
However, Israel, bolstered by its allies, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, managed to intercept the vast majority of these projectiles. Jordan also played a crucial role in intercepting missiles traversing its airspace. Despite the scale of the attack, Israeli military sources reported only minor damage to infrastructure at a base in southern Israel and a seven-year-old girl being severely injured by missile fragments. The effectiveness of Israel’s air defense system, coupled with international assistance, prevented what could have been a far more devastating outcome. The US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin confirmed that US forces also intercepted “dozens” of missiles and drones launched from Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, further highlighting the coordinated international effort to counter the Iranian attack.
The Damascus Consulate Strike: The Trigger for Retaliation
The immediate catalyst for Iran’s drone and missile attack was the April 1st strike on its consulate in Damascus. This attack, widely attributed to Israel, resulted in the death of Iranian Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a senior commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), along with six other Iranian nationals and at least six Syrian citizens. Iran viewed this strike as a direct assault on its sovereignty and a major escalation in the ongoing shadow conflict between the two nations.
Interactive graphic illustrating the trajectory of Iranian drones and missiles fired towards Israel, showcasing the scope and direction of the attack.
For Iran, responding to the consulate attack was not merely about retaliation; it was also about maintaining regional prestige and credibility. As David Des Roches from the National Defense University noted, “Iranian leaders are determined to take action but also [be] seen to take action.” This suggests that beyond strategic considerations, factors of national pride and the need to project strength played a significant role in Iran’s decision-making process. Failing to respond could have been perceived as weakness, potentially emboldening Israel and its allies and undermining Iran’s influence in the region.
Beyond Retaliation: Iran’s Strategic Messaging
While presented as retaliation, Iran’s attack also served as a strategic message to Israel and the wider international community. By launching a direct attack from its own soil, Iran crossed a significant threshold, demonstrating its capability and willingness to directly confront Israel. This move can be interpreted as an attempt to deter future Israeli strikes and redefine the rules of engagement in their ongoing conflict.
Interactive visualization detailing the types of ballistic and cruise missiles used by Iran in the attack, providing technical insights into the weaponry deployed.
Moreover, the timing and nature of the attack allowed Iran to calibrate its response, aiming for a show of force without necessarily seeking to trigger a full-scale war. The fact that the vast majority of projectiles were intercepted and damage was limited suggests that Iran’s goal might have been more about sending a message and demonstrating capability rather than inflicting maximum damage and casualties. This calibrated approach allowed Iran to assert its resolve while also providing an off-ramp to prevent further escalation, depending on Israel’s response.
Israeli and Iranian Government Reactions
Following the attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel “will win,” emphasizing the strength of Israel’s defenses and its readiness for any scenario. He also expressed gratitude to allies like the US and UK for their support. However, reports indicate that the Israeli war cabinet was divided on the nature and timing of a potential response, highlighting the complexities and risks of further escalation. Despite public pronouncements of strength, there may be internal pressures to avoid actions that could lead to a wider regional conflict.
On the Iranian side, the message was equally assertive. Iranian military chief of staff Major General Mohammad Bagheri warned that any Israeli retaliation would be met with a “much larger” response. Iran also cautioned the US against supporting Israeli retaliation, threatening to target US bases in the region. Simultaneously, Iran’s mission to the UN stated that the “matter can be deemed concluded,” suggesting a desire to de-escalate provided Israel does not retaliate further. This dual messaging – both threatening and suggesting closure – reflects the delicate balancing act Iran is attempting to maintain.
International Condemnation and Calls for De-escalation
The Iranian attack drew widespread international condemnation, with allies of Israel and many other nations urging restraint and de-escalation. US President Biden stated that the US would not participate in offensive operations against Iran but reaffirmed unwavering support for Israel’s defense. The UN Security Council convened and called on both Iran and Israel to exercise maximum restraint, with Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warning that “neither the region nor the world can afford more war.”
Countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, China, and India also expressed concerns about escalation and called for de-escalation and restraint. The G7 leaders unequivocally condemned Iran’s attack, emphasizing the risk of “uncontrollable regional escalation” and committing to work towards stabilizing the situation. The unified international response underscores the global concern over the escalating tensions between Iran and Israel and the potential for wider regional instability.
The Precarious Path Forward
The question of what happens next remains highly uncertain. While Iran has signaled that it considers the matter “concluded” if Israel does not retaliate, the possibility of further escalation remains very real. As Gideon Levy, an Israeli journalist, cautioned, any Israeli counter-attack could trigger a regional war. The extent of US support for Israel may influence Israel’s decision-making, potentially urging restraint to avoid a wider conflict.
The exchange between Iran and Israel has heightened anxieties across the Arab world, with concerns about the devastating consequences of a regional war. Analysts warn that a broader Iranian-Israeli conflict could draw in other regional and global powers, leading to a potentially explosive international confrontation. Therefore, the coming days and weeks will be critical in determining whether the region can step back from the brink of wider conflict or if this attack marks the beginning of a more dangerous and volatile phase in the Middle East.
Source: Al Jazeera
