The feared reprisal had been almost two weeks in the making. But when Iran finally pushed the button on its retaliatory attack against Israel late on Saturday, it appeared to amount to little more than a drawn-out light show, resulting only in minor damage to some remote Israeli military infrastructure and the injury of a seven-year-old girl from a Bedouin community. Analysts say the Iranian operation was designed to fail from the start and had been carefully choreographed to avoid triggering an all-out regional war. At least for now.
The whole world held its breath when, a few hours before midnight on Saturday, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps announced the Islamic Republic had launched its first-ever direct attack on Israel, sending a barrage of drones and, a little later in the night, missiles towards Tel Aviv.
The attack, Iran said, was a response to Israel’s April 1 air strike on its consulate in Damascus, in which a total of seven Revolutionary Guards had been killed, including Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a senior commander of the Guards’ elite al-Quds force. Zahedi is believed to have played a key role in Iran’s relationship with the Lebanon-based Hezbollah group and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. His death therefore dealt a serious blow to Tehran.
Although the Israeli government has not commented on the attack, Tehran immediately blamed it on the “Zionist regime”, Iran’s term for Israel, vowing to not let it go unanswered.
More than 300 projectiles
On April 13, more than 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles and 120 ballistic missiles finally left their launch pads in Iran, lighting up the night sky for several hours. As they reached Israeli territory, however, nearly all of them were shot down. And the few that actually did manage to pierce through Israel’s renowned Iron Dome air defence system caused only minor infrastructure damage, including to an Israeli military base in southern Israel. A seven-year-old girl in a Bedouin town was also injured from shrapnel after one of the Iranian projectiles was intercepted by Israeli fire, The Times of Israel reported.
On social media, Israel’s Defence Forces (IDF) prided itself on its success in averting the long-awaited Iranian attack, publishing a series of posts and videos on the X platform showing “what a 99 percent interception rate looks like”.
“We stand strong together against any enemy,” it stated.
In an interview with Israeli newspaper Ynet, Israeli Brigadier General Reem Aminoach, a former financial advisor to the IDF chief of staff, estimated the defence to have costed some 4-5 billion shekels, equivalent to between €1-1.24 billion.
Many warnings
But Tehran’s “failure” soon began to raise eyebrows, with experts questioning whether Iran’s impressive barrage of airborne weapons were even intended to cause any damage at all. Especially since the Islamic Republic had repeatedly warned Israel that it would be subject to some sort of a counter-attack.
Several hours prior to the drone and missile attacks, Iran had also seized an Israeli-linked cargo vessel, clearly signaling that a larger-scale assault was fast approaching, prompting Israel to close its schools and ban larger gatherings.
Conducted on the strength of Article 51 of the UN Charter pertaining to legitimate defense, Iran’s military action was in response to the Zionist regime’s aggression against our diplomatic premises in Damascus. The matter can be deemed concluded. However, should the Israeli…
— Permanent Mission of I.R.Iran to UN, NY (@Iran_UN) April 13, 2024
In other words, Iran seems to have been generous in handing out advance notices.
When Iran’s Revolutionary Guards finally announced it had sent a barrage of drones Israel’s way, the government had already had time to up its defences, close schools and ban larger gatherings in some areas.
The fact that it would take the drones almost four hours before they entered Israeli air space also played in Israel’s favour.
“It appears that with the prior warnings Iran had issued, and with the kind of weapons they used – slow-moving drones – it wanted to minimise casualties,” Ali Vaez, project director for Iran at the Washington DC-based think-tank International Crisis Group, said, adding that the intention seems to have been to prevent “an all-out war in the region”.
Julien Barnes-Dacey, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), agreed, saying “the strikes were very well telegraphed”.
“This was about demonstrating a firm response [to the Damascus strike] and yet holding it sufficiently in check to avoid provoking direct war, which is still Iran’s core aim,” he said in an emailed comment.
Throwing bait to hardliners
But why such a show of force then?
According to Vaez, it may have been a way for the Iranian regime to – at least partly – satisfy the country’s hardliners, who feel that the leadership has been too soft on Israel as it continues to target Iranian interests in the region.
“For a regime like the Islamic Republic, which has lost a lot of legitimacy at home, that 10-15 percent constituency is important,” he said.
Had Iran wanted to cause Israel any real damage, both analysts said, the timing of the attack would have been kept much more under wraps. And Iran would also have enlisted the help of its proxy militias – Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and militia groups in Syria and Iraq – in an attack that would have been closer to the Israeli border.
“It’s very important [to note] that in this round, Hezbollah did not enter into the fray in any serious way,” Vaez said, noting that a more prominent interference from the militant group would have been far more dangerous considering its armed capacity and geographical proximity.
The axis of resistance
If, however, Israel decides to strike back on Iranian soil, there is a real risk that Iran’s proxies, also known as the “axis of resistance”, will be a part of Tehran’s response. If Hezbollah gets involved, “we will really end up in a regional war which would be catastrophic”, Vaez said.
Barnes-Dacey of the ECFR said that: “While there may be a sense of confidence in Israel, it would likely be a mistake to imagine that Iran won’t unleash a far more impactful response to strikes on its own territory which it will view in existential terms.”
Following the attack, Iran’s permanent mission to the United Nations commented on the X platform that the “matter [of the air strike on its Damascus consulate] can be deemed concluded. However, should the Israeli regime make another mistake, Iran’s response will be considerably more severe”.
