Anadolu Agency – April 16, 2024
The aftermath: Winners and losers in Iran’s retaliation against Israel
Netanyahu used the opportunity presented by Iran’s retaliation to refresh the Western pledge to continue backing Israel militarily and politically
Burak Elmali
On April 13, Iran responded to Israel’s April 1 bombardment of its consulate in Damascus in which seven senior Revolutionary Guard members, including two generals, lost their lives. Iran’s retaliation, launched from its territory, involved dozens of UAVs and cruise missiles. Even though the ordnance was impressive numerically speaking, almost all were intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome and allied air defense systems, resulting in no casualties.
Tehran’s advocates in the region highlight that this is the first time Iran has targeted Israel directly without resorting to its regional proxies. Irrespective of the impact of such a decision on Tehran’s modus operandi, this episode uncovered many winners and losers.
Two winners
The biggest winner of this move is Israel, especially Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In recent weeks, Netanyahu has irritated many of his usual supporters in Western political circles. Netanyahu used the opportunity presented by Iran’s retaliation to refresh the Western pledge to continue backing Israel militarily and politically.
Through this message to the United States and key European countries, which have been unwaveringly supporting Israel since the beginning of the war, Netanyahu successfully deflected discussions of his political fate and his genocidal undertaking in Gaza, which last month drew harsh criticism [1] from US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Iran emerged as the other winner by salvaging its tarnished reputation in the eyes of its domestic public and sympathizers across the Middle East. Had Iran not retaliated against Israel’s attack or merely brushed it off with a few highly symbolic Hezbollah strikes in northern Israel, its credibility would have been severely questioned, and its classical pretext of "avoiding regional escalation" would not have worked. For Iran, this face-saving measure seemed to solve the problem. Moreover, Iran reiterated that its retaliation was in response to the consulate attack, referencing Article 51 of the UN Charter in its statement, thereby maintaining its commitment to avoid the war in Gaza, as promised to the US in the weeks following Oct. 7. So it positioned this move as outside the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict and stressed that retaliation should be perceived as such.
Who lost?
The civilians who face Israel’s genocidal undertaking in Gaza are on the losing side, as this episode shifted the world’s attention and redirected the role of villain to Iran.
Questions and speculations arise about potential Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and how Iran might respond to such attacks or how it will keep its regional weight on the ground alive through its proxies in Syria and Iraq. Such discussions move the spotlight from Gaza to another subject and risk reducing the Western media’s attention to and awareness of civilian casualties and various other war crimes. Tehran was thus played by Tel Aviv, providing the latter a much-needed escape valve in the war of narratives that Israel was losing. Furthermore, Israel, buoyed by the reassurance of Western pro-Israel bias, may feel unleashed to commit new war crimes.
Inseparable trio
While Iran’s retaliation may not have been a complete response to Israel’s consulate attack, it did earn a reputational advantage among sympathizers in the region, especially within the so-called Axis of Resistance. Tehran reinforced its image as an actor capable of directly striking Israel, a feat only accomplished by Saddam Hussein during the 1990-1991 Gulf War.
By the same token, Tehran’s emboldened status allows Israel to secure ongoing political and military support from the West, ensuring continued US presence.
This tripartite liaison reveals much about regional geopolitics, highlighting how the inseparable trio, [2] represented by the US, Iran, and Israel, are detrimental to the Palestinian cause.
Despite Iran’s claims that its retaliation was partially a response to the Israeli onslaught on Gaza, in fact it played into Israel’s desired narrative. Furthermore, this situation also provides pretexts for the US to maintain its military footprint in the region despite its withdrawal narrative, [3] which is popular among many American constituencies.
Iran’s response is akin to a plot from a Western film, characterized by intricate maneuvers. One actor conjures a sense of danger towards another without inflicting actual damage. Subsequently, the actor under perceived threat calls on a third party to assume the role of the sheriff, offering protection and restoring balance.
Meanwhile, Tehran emerged with an enhanced reputation among its target audience in the region even when Iran’s objectives, communicated through its proxies, namely a US withdrawal from the Middle East and an end to Israeli oppression against Palestine, remain unfulfilled.
In the Middle East, nothing is what it seems. What appears to the laymen as staunch enemies could be, in fact, a situation where these protagonists are aligned with their interests even if their declared goals appear conflicting.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/15/world/middleeast/schumer-israel-netanyahu-us.html
[2] https://researchcentre.trtworld.com/blogs/the-u-s-and-iran-an-inseparable-duo/
[3] https://www.newarab.com/opinion/us-narrative-withdrawal-middle-east-fallacy
Burak Elmali is a researcher at TRT World Research Centre, based in Istanbul, Türkiye.
Anadolu Agency – April 16, 2024
Flex of deterrence, test of alliance:
Analysts assess military coalition’s role in Iran’s retaliatory attack on Israel
By Rabia Ali
- Attack part of Iran’s attempt to create ‘new normal’ and marks ‘beginning of long-awaited flex of deterrence against Israel,’ according to geopolitical analyst Ryan Bohl
- Iranian attack was a ‘major’ one and the fact that all these countries came to Israel’s aid is ‘politically very significant,’ says military analyst Fabian Hinz
ISTANBUL
Iran’s unprecedented drone and missile attack on Israel over the weekend has shed new light on the level of coordination between a military coalition of Israeli allies which played a crucial role in interception and damage limitation.
Iran fired more than 300 drones and missiles on the night of April 13, a retaliation for the April 1 Israeli airstrike on its diplomatic compound in Damascus that killed several Iranian officials, including senior commanders.
Almost all of the projectiles were reportedly intercepted by Israeli air defenses and a coalition of forces, led by the US and including the UK, France and Arab states such as Jordan.
This marked the first time such a coalition worked together and has “created new opportunities for cooperation in the Middle East,” according to Israeli army chief Herzi Halevi.
Experts such as Andreas Krieg believe the coalition’s aim was “keeping the region safe” and preventing further escalation.
“The objective for the UK, US, France, Jordan was to make sure that most of these drones and rockets missiles don’t land in Israel and don’t cause any damage, to keep Israel out of a direct confrontation with Iran,” Krieg, a senior lecturer at the School of Security Studies at King’s College London, told Anadolu.
The primary objective for everyone, he stressed, was to make sure that the impact of the Iranian attack was as minimal as possible.
“The more damage Iranian drones would cause in Israel, the more likely Israel would have to respond, and any response by Israel on Iranian soil would obviously be seen as a major escalation,” he said, adding that it could “create a more open war.”
Krieg compared it to a situation seen in 1991, when UK and US forces “were trying to destroy Scud missiles inside Iraq to make sure that they do not hit Israel.”
On Jordan’s role in the entire episode, he said it was obviously very important because “it was right on the trajectory of these missiles and drones.”
However, he cautioned against overemphasizing or overanalyzing it in terms of the kingdom’s support to Israel.
“This is not about necessarily supporting Israel or defending Israel, but it’s about keeping the region safe, making sure that the Iranian attack would cause as little damage as possible,” said Krieg.
“That is in the interest of everyone and it’s in the interest of regional stability and regional security,” he added.
He also pointed out that the coalition operated in a manner that allowed Iran “to tick the box of retaliation and, thereby, hoping to conclude the episode that started with Israel’s attack on the consulate in Damascus.”
Operational strategy
Iran’s retaliatory strike, the first time it has ever directly targeted Israel, included 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles and 120 ballistic missiles, according to various reports.
Geopolitical analyst Ryan Bohl said the military coalition used a combination of assets used to block the attack, including radar coordination, US naval assets and air forces.
He said US tracking systems in Syria would have been particularly useful in keeping an eye on drones and missiles moving across the area.
Military analyst Fabian Hinz agreed that the US played a major role in tracking and sharing data, both with the Israelis and other partners.
Another important role was of US naval assets, including aircraft carriers and military ships that come equipped with missile defense systems, the experts said.
They were used “to block attacks coming out of Yemen through the Red Sea,” according to Bohl, a senior Middle East and North Africa analyst at risk intelligence firm RANE.
According to a report by American news outlet The Intercept, four ships part of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) battle group “have played a central role in thwarting Iran-backed attacks.”
“They have enough firepower on them to carry out these kinds of missions at scale for extended period of time, so they’re major weapons platforms,” said Bohl.
As for air power, he said systems “like the F-22, the F-16, the F-35, Rafale jets from France or the Typhoons from the UK” have the ability to deal with the kind of threats faced in the Iranian retaliatory attack.
Regarding the bases from where the fighter jets operated, Bohl pointed to places like Jordan and possibly Gulf Arab States such as Bahrain, the UAE, or Saudi Arabia.
He believes most of the ballistic missiles were “largely intercepted” by Israel’s own Arrow and David’s Sling systems, adding that these “were used at a scale that we haven’t seen before.”
According to Hinz, the US, UK, France and “apparently Jordan” used manned fighter jets to shoot down Iranian drones.
“When you shoot at these drones, it’s very difficult to know where they are, while the cruise missiles fly very low and they can change their path,” he explained.
“When you have a ballistic missile, it flies in a fixed ballistic trajectory, but drones and cruise missiles can fly evasive maneuvers and change their trajectory, so tracking them is quite tricky.”
Most drones, if not all drones and cruise missiles, “were shot down out of Israeli territory … and this seems to have happened using manned fighter jets,” he added.
Details of France’s involvement still remain unclear, the experts said.
Bohl said there were reports of French forces downing some drones, pointing out that “France has been involved in Syria … for many years, so they have assets nearby” that could have been redeployed.
As for the UK, he said most of its operations “would have been out of Cyprus, where they continue to have significant military bases.”
Iran’s ‘new normal’
Hinz’s overall assessment was the Iranian attack was “not symbolic” and rather a “major” one.
“The Iranians tried to overwhelm Israeli defenses by using a huge number and diverse array of systems – ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones,” he said.
The fact that all these countries came to Israel’s aid is “politically very significant,” he said, adding that it may have helped Israel improve relations with the US and increase “cooperation with local neighbors.”
“People now have talked about the possibility of, the idea of integrating air defenses, or at least increasing coordination,” said Hinz.
For Bohl, this was an attempt by Iran to create “a new normal,” showing willingness and ability to strike Israeli soil directly.
“This is the beginning of this long-awaited flex of Iran’s deterrence against Israel,” he said.
“It has built up all these missiles and drones for so many years to try to signal to the Israelis that moving against Iran itself is too dangerous and too painful for Israel to consider.”
Israel or Iran: Who should we blame first?
By Muhittin Ataman
The whole world has been holding its breath and watching the Israeli-Iranian tension for the last two weeks.
The international community was waiting for an Iranian response to Israel's unclaimed attack on the Iranian Consulate building after the April 1 Israeli strike on the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, which killed seven members of the Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), including two generals in charge of leading operations in Syria and Lebanon, along with six other people. Iranian officials announced that they would respond harshly to the Israeli attack.
The Iranian response came on last Saturday. Iran launched more than 300 drones and missiles toward Israel. These drones and missiles have caused only modest damage on the Israeli side since most of them were intercepted by Israel and its allies, namely the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Jordan.
What exactly happened between Iran and Israel? How has the latest tension begun? In this short piece, I will try to underline several universal guiding principles of international relations that must be considered by all states.
The whole world knows that the tension started with the Israeli attack against the Iranian diplomatic complex in Damascus. According to international custom and the basic principles of international law, diplomatic buildings and personalities have diplomatic immunity, which is one of the oldest practices of international relations.
Diplomatic immunity
Diplomats representing their country abroad enjoy diplomatic immunity throughout their diplomatic post, even during political tensions and armed conflicts. The main principles and practices of diplomatic immunity have conformed to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, considered one of the most important cornerstones of modern international relations. The Vienna Convention, which was signed and ratified by almost all members of the United Nations, is considered one of the most successful instruments of the U.N. system.
According to the Vienna Convention, the premises of a diplomatic mission, the embassies and consulate buildings, are inviolable and must not be entered by the host country. The host country must never search the premises and cannot seize its documents or property. The host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage (Article 22). This provision extends even to the private residences of diplomatic agents (Article 30).
After this brief legal definition, we can discuss the latest Israeli attack and the Iranian response. Targeting the Iranian diplomatic mission was a further Israeli step to expand the war to the Middle East. Thus, the Israeli government, which is under increasing pressure from the international community, including the Western people, wants to divert the world's attention from Gaza. As a matter of fact, the Iranian attack has briefly shifted the world's attention from the deaths of more than 33,000 people, mostly children and women, in the Gaza Strip. As a result of this intention, Israel has been targeting the Iranian proxy actors in Syria and Lebanon since the Oct. 7 attack and its brutal response.
Western countries did not even condemn the Israeli attack against the Iranian Consulate building. For instance, when asked, the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden has refused to condemn the Damascus consulate bombing. In other words, the attack was recorded as another red-line violation by Israel. However, all Western countries strongly condemned the Iranian drone attack against Israel. Many Western politicians have even painted Israel as the victim of unprovoked aggression. Thus, they remain totally indifferent to all of Israel's longstanding transgressions. In spite of putting pressure on Israel to stop its atrocities in Gaza, the Western countries have increased their support to Israel.
Israel's political maneuvers
It seems that Israel's attempts to divert the attention of the world from Gaza and to get more support from its Western allies worked out. By providing more support, the Western countries continue to encourage the Israeli government to commit more crimes in the Palestinian lands. With all these steps, they continue to sacrifice the basic universal human rights principles and moral values, as well as their national interests, for Israel.
Israel has violated several significant principles of international law. First of all, it has violated the national sovereignty of the Syrian state. Not to mention the Palestinian lands, Israel has insistently been violating the national sovereignty of its neighbors, especially that of Lebanon and Syria. Second, Israel has hit the Iranian Consulate building, which has diplomatic immunity. Therefore, it violated some basic principles of the Vienna Convention.
On the other hand, the Iranian side, which was provoked by Israel, has explained to the world that its response was a self-defense move. Iran's ambassador to the U.N. says his country's drone and missile attack against Israel was an "exercise of Iran's inherent right to self-defense." Iran and its supporters have pointed out the double standard of Western countries, who did not even condemn Israel for targeting a diplomatic building after Iran's attack on Israel, which Iran claimed was a response to the deadly Israeli bombing of the Iranian Consulate. Meanwhile, the latest attack was the first direct Iranian attack against Israel in response to Israel's strike on its consulate.
All in all, the pro-Western and pro-Israel narratives continue to dominate international relations. However, watching the Israeli mass killings and targeting civilians, the pro-Western narrative is gradually losing its effect. At the U.N. meeting, many states have supported Iran. Even large segments of public opinion in the West have been increasingly critical of their own governments. Unilateral implementation or interpretation of principles of international relations and international law will no longer be accepted by the international community. The world's Western and non-Western public opinion no longer trusts Western governments. Considering the developments in the last two weeks, it is Israel and its supporters to blame rather than the provoked Iran.
Muhittin Ataman is a professor in the Department of International Relations at Social Sciences University of Ankara. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of Insight Turkey, published by SETA Foundation.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/israel-or-iran-who-should-we-blame-first
Who’s involved in the Israel-Iran proxy war?
Tehran used to rely on foreign proxies against Tel Aviv until the Israeli attack on its consulate in Syria which brought about a significant shift in the terms of engagement between the long adversaries.
Since Israel’s brutal military campaign on Gaza began, Iran’s foreign proxies responded with attacks ranging from cross-border exchanges between Hezbollah and Israel to frequent disruption of Red Sea shipping by Yemen’s Houthis.
Following the Israeli attack on Iran’s consulate in the Syrian capital, Damascus, on April 1, killing seven Iranian nationals, including one top Iranian commander. The incident quickly raised fears of further clashes.
Iran’s approach took a noticeable shift on Sunday when it launched an unprecedented assault of drones and missiles into Israel. It was the first time, despite decades of enmity, that Tehran had launched a direct military attack on Tel Aviv, prompting attention to now focus on Israel’s next steps and how it will decide on further military action.
Tensions between the two have long simmered, with Iran and Israel caught in a shadow war across the Middle East. The former has developed the ‘axis of resistance,’ a network in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, which Tehran typically relies upon as part of its deterrence strategy against Israel.
This network includes Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and the Houthis, whose recent attacks have seen it target Israeli-linked ships, as well as other groups.
Lebanon
In 1982, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards established Hezbollah to fight Israeli forces that invaded Lebanon that year.
The group is considered an influential political player, in addition to its status viewed widely as more powerful than the Lebanese state.
Since early October, there has been heavy exchange of fire — the most intense since a full-scale war in 2006 — between Hezbollah and Israeli forces at the Lebanese-Israeli border. The group says the aim is to stretch the Israeli army thin.
According to Israeli security sources, Israel has killed some 240 Hezbollah militants including top commanders in Lebanon since October 7, while 30 others were killed in Israeli strikes in Syria.
Yemen
The Houthi movement took control of large parts of Yemen, including Sanaa, when civil war broke out in late 2014.
Saudi Arabia, the region's leading Sunni Muslim power, was worried by the growing influence of Shia Iran along its border and intervened in the war in March 2015 in support of the ousted, Saudi-backed government.
Last September, Saudi Arabia hosted Houthi negotiators in Riyadh, showing an interest in backing diplomatic efforts for a peace process and ending the war in Yemen.
On October 31, the Houthis fired drones and missiles towards Israel, and by November expanded by attacking Israeli-owned or Israel-bound ships in the southern Red Sea.
The British and US launched air strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen in January. Although Iran denies involvement, the US says Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have been assisting in planning and carrying out the Houthi missile and drone attacks.
"The Revolutionary Guards have been helping the Houthis with military training (on advanced weapons)," an Iranian insider told Reuters in January.
"A group of Houthi fighters were in Iran last month and were trained in an IRGC base in central Iran to get familiar with the new technology and the use of missiles,” they said adding that Iranian commanders had also travelled to Yemen to set up a command centre in the capital Sanaa for the Red Sea attacks.
Iraq and Syria
An umbrella group of Shia armed factions called Islamic Resistance in Iraq began targeting US forces stationed in Iraq and Syria in October, saying they aimed to respond to Israeli attacks on Palestinians in Gaza and to resist US forces deployed in Iraq and the region.
Members of these Shia armed groups often operate outside the Iraqi military chain of command, receive state salaries, and are under the authority of the prime minister.
Meanwhile, the Syrian government, which is led by regime leader Bashar al-Assad, is also part of the ‘axis of resistance.’ A close ally of Iran for decades, it has, however, not played any direct role in the current conflict.
Forces backed by Iran have been deployed across much of Syria since arriving to aid Assad more than a decade ago in the Syrian civil war. expert comment pieceexpert comment pieceﾠfor British think tank Chatham House, Dr Sanam Vakil, Middle East and North Africa Programme director, and Bilal Y. Saab, Middle East and North Africa Programme associate fellow, writes that Iran ﾓdemonstrated a more assertive approachﾔ with the strikes, changing ﾓlong-established terms of engagement between the two adversarial states.ﾔ
ﾓIran showcased more capability in its attack than its detractors would like to admit. Iran forced Israel, and the United States, to spend more than a billion dollars to counter its attack,ﾔ according to the experts.
ﾓThatﾒs not an insignificant outcome, considering that Iran paid roughly one tenth of that to mount its attack. In a fiscally-constrained and politically-charged environment in Washington, increasing US military assistance to Israel is not guaranteed.ﾔ
Yet, the experts argue, “None of this suggests that Iran’s attack was a slam dunk,” noting that an unintended consequence is countries such as Jordan and from the West rallying behind Tel Aviv, which was already, “making huge and unforgivable mistakes in Gaza with its collective punishment of the Palestinian people.”
“The region is entering uncharted territory where the previous strategic paradigm and rules of engagement no longer apply,” according to Amal Saad, a lecturer at the UK’s Cardiff University.
"Regardless of what Israel does next, there is no going back to the status quo ante,” Saad said in a post on X. “This is no longer the Iran that just supports resistance movements with weapons and training. This is the Iran that directly engages in strikes against Israel.
As the politics lecturer puts it, “This is a new proactive phase of the Resistance Axis' ‘offensive defence’ strategy, which was officially launched on October 8 when Hezbollah and later other Resistance Axis allies directly intervened in the conflict against Israel.”
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/whos-involved-in-the-israel-iran-proxy-war-17800661
US’ Regional Bases to Get Hit If They Aid Israel, Iran Warns
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – The Iranian foreign minister said the regional countries hosting American military bases have been given a warning that if their airspace or territories are used by the US for supporting the Israeli regime in any action against Iran, those bases will be inevitably targeted by Iran.
In a meeting with the foreign ambassadors to Tehran, held at the Foreign Ministry on Sunday, Hossein Amirabdollahian expounded on the punitive mission “Operation True Promise” that Iran carried out in the wee hours of Sunday in retaliation for the Israeli airstrike on the consular section of the Iranian embassy in Damascus on April 1.
He said the friends of Iran in the regional countries had been informed around 72 hours in advance of the operation that Iran will definitely give a response to Israel in accordance with its legitimate right to self-defense.
Highlighting the significance that Iran attaches to the security of the region, the foreign minister said, “We notified our brothers and friends in the regional countries, where the United States has military bases, that our purpose of legitimate defense is merely punishment for the Israeli regime.”
Amirabdollahian noted that Iran does not seek to target American bases or forces across the region, adding, “We emphasized that we have never welcomed the escalation of tension in the region.”
The foreign minister then stated that Iran has warned the countries hosting the American bases that if their airspace or soil is used by the US to defend or provide support for the Zionist regime, the American military bases in those states will inevitably get hit.
Taking a swipe at the US, the UK and France for their opposition to any statement by the UN Security Council in condemnation of the Israeli fatal strike on Iran’s embassy in Damascus, Amirabdollahian said such behavior encouraged the Israeli prime minister to cross the red lines and ignore the international law.
He noted that the Iranian Armed Forces waited for at least 10 days for the results of the Foreign Ministry’s diplomatic efforts at the international level.
Hailing the Iranian forces for their coordinated response against military targets inside the occupied territories, the foreign minister stressed that Iran’s operation was restricted. “We told the White House today that our operation was confined and aimed at punishing the (Zionist) regime.”
|
Published since July 2008 |
Your donation
is tax deductable.
The Journal of America Team:
Editor in chief:
Abdus Sattar Ghazali
Senior Editor:
Prof. Arthur Scott
Special Correspondent
Maryam Turab
