Introduction
On
14 Apr, Iran launched its first direct military offensive against Israel. The
attack consisted of over 300 Shahed drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.
The launch was detected immediately, and the Israeli forces on high alert had
approximately two hours of response time before the drones reached Israeli
airspace.
The strike was then taken apart as it moved across the
Middle East by members of the United States(US)-led Middle East Air Defence (AD)
Alliance, which included jets from the Royal Air Force, the Jordanian Air
Forces and the US Air Force. Most of the surviving munitions were then
intercepted by Israel’s AD Systems which included the Iron Dome, Davids Sling
and Arrow 2 and 3. At least five penetrated through these defences and struck
targets in and around the Nevatim Air Base in the Negev Desert. These five hits
resulted in no casualties and caused only structural damage.
The world was on edge and there was danger that a
threatened Israeli retaliation would result in a regional if not wider conflict.
Crude prices spiked, markets dropped across the globe and gold reached new
heights. For India one of the major dangers of escalation was the blocking of
the Straits of Hormuz as it would result in disruption of both crude and
natural gas.
Israeli
Response
The
Israeli reaction took place within the week. On 19 Apr, they struck a military
airbase near the city of Isfahan and Iranian officials also claimed to have
shot down small drones near the northern city of Tabriz but this was
downplayed. Isfahan Province in the centre of Iran is home to significant
Iranian military infrastructure, including a large air base, a major missile production
complex and nuclear facilities. As per reports in the Jerusalem Post, the Israelis were
targeting an AD radar site near Isfahan that’s part of the protection of the
Natanz nuclear facility.
The choreography of missile strikes once again ensured that
there were no casualties and moreover no targeting of Iranian Nuclear
facilities. Iranian media and officials described a small number of
explosions, which they said resulted from AD hitting three drones over Isfahan.
They referred to the incident as an attack by ‘Infiltrators’, rather than by
Israel, obviating the need for retaliation.
The Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian
downplaying the attack said, "They are ... more like toys that our
children play with, not drones". He also added; “As long as there is no new
adventurism by Israel against our interests, we are not going to have any new
reactions’.[1]
With Israel remaining deadlocked in Gaza, where around
130 Israeli hostages remain and Israel has inflicted more than 34,000 civilian
casualties including women and children.
The Iranian strikes must have seemed as a welcome relief as the
narrative shifted from the humanitarian crisis Israel is causing in Gaza.
Further, in a timing that cannot be a mere coincidence, the US House of Representatives
quickly passed an aid package of $26.38 bn for Israel.[2]
With no hostage deal or ceasefire mechanisms apparent,
the risk of miscalculation remains high. The region remains in a uniquely
dangerous position in which Prime Minister Netanyahu may feel that he has
little choice but to escalate with Iran in order to maintain public support.
But responses to the strike within Israel have exposed
the country's political fissures. Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir described
the strike on Iran as ‘Feeble’ or ‘Lame’. In response, Israeli Opposition
Leader Yair Lapid called for him to be sacked, and said his remark had
ridiculed and embarrassed Israel.[3]
Things
Were Going Iran’s Way
Since
the 1979 revolution, Iran has taken an anti-Israeli posture and as part of its
deterrence strategy has cultivated and financed support for the ‘Axis of Resistance’
network in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Palestine, surrounding Israel’s
borders.
The Hamas attack on 07 Oct suited Iran’s agenda. Israel
had suffered an unprecedented and humiliating setback, and its much-lauded
intelligence and defences had failed. Its subsequent actions in Gaza had
received widespread condemnation and had aligned the Middle Eastern countries
against Israel. Israel’s war was steadily harming its image, simultaneously
exposing the hypocrisy of its Western backers. Israel was getting increasingly
isolated internationally due to its disastrous war in Gaza.
The Palestinian cause in the region and around the world
had been resurrected. Sympathy for Palestinians, particularly in the West, was more
voluble. Iran did not need to intervene, its proxies acted on its behalf.
Hezbollah had been routinely shelling Northern Israel, and the Houthis in Yemen
have launched numerous unsuccessful missile and drone strikes against Israel
and disrupted global shipping.
But Israel’s attack against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Damascus forced Iranian officials to make a more difficult choice. Iran had two choices; it could refrain from overt retaliation and continue to benefit from the present situation where Israel is being criticised for their actions in Gaza. The spotlight would remain on the atrocities in Gaza. Retaliation with force would discourage Israel from crossing the boundaries the two countries had established by their shadow war.[4] Both options carried their own risks and benefits.
Iranian
Compulsions
Iran
felt it had to act post the Israeli strike on its Consulate in Damascus and
framed its strike within international law writing to the United nations
Security Council quoting Article 51 regarding its legitimate self-defence. It
decided it had to violate a Napoleonic dictum ‘Never interrupt your enemy when
he is making a mistake’.
Its primary aim was restoring the balance of deterrence by
its ‘Sub-threshold response strategy’ a type of response that was meticulously
crafted above deterrence but below escalation.
Surprisingly, Iran even went against a key military principle of war, ‘The
element of surprise’. It telegraphed its intentions to Washington and several
Arab and European capitals assuring them that its strike would be relatively
limited.
The use of its array of weapons to inflict the damage was
more than mere symbolism as it was aimed at reflecting Iranian capabilities.
Iranian Armed Forces’ Chief of Staff, Maj Gen Mohammad Bagheri stated, “Our
response will be much larger than tonight’s military action if Israel
retaliates against Iran’, which is indicative of weapons in their arsenal which
were not used and could be used in future. It also marks a shift in Iranian
policy from ‘Strategic Patience’ to ‘Active Deterrence’. [5]
Iran’s current strategy in the region was working well
due to its proxies which gave them strategic depth, operational flexibility and
plausible deniability. But its recent action has been driven by few aims; it
has tried to demonstrate that it has the ability to alter the prevailing
situation and that its missiles have the capability of reaching Israel and
penetrating their AD systems. The next is that the attack was directed at both
Israel and the US thereby conveying that they would not submit to a Western
political vision out of a sense of fear and finally it has also conveyed a
message to those countries in the region that were moving towards normalisation
of relations with Israel.
The attack showcased Iran’s growing might and its
willingness to strike at its adversaries to quote the Commander in Chief of the IRGC, Hossein
Salami; “We have decided to establish a new dynamic with Israel”.[6]
Conclusion
While
the Israeli ‘Limited Response’ seems to have averted the storm, unfortunately,
while a crisis has been abated the tensions continue to endure. The fact
remains that while any nation can start a war, its duration and intensity
become indeterminate in the long run.
Hence, the implications of crossing of this red line during
this cycle of violence will remain. Firing of missiles primarily to signal
resolve rather than cause damage is difficult to design while ensuring the
conflict goes no further.
Rewriting the rules of engagement is challenging but
undoubtedly both sides have made a symbolic statement and managed the
escalation cycle, wherein they have played to the gallery as far as their
domestic audience is concerned. They have responded while at the same time
ensured that a retaliatory strike will remain below escalatory threshold.
Endnotes
[1] NDTV.com. “Our Next Response Will Be
At Maximum Level: Iran Warns Israel Again,” NDTV, 20 April 2024 https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/will-respond-at-maximum-level-if-israel-iran-warns-amid-tensions-5481532.
[2] Mallinder,
Lorraine. “US Congress to Vote on Aid for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan: What’s the
Deal?” Al Jazeera, April 21, 2024. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/4/20/us-congress-to-vote-on-aid-for-israel-ukraine-taiwan-whats-the-deal.
[3] Palumbo,
By Sean Seddon And Daniele. “What We Know about Israel’s Missile Attack on
Iran,” April 19, 2024. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68853402.
[4] Grajewski,
Nicole. “Iran and Israel’s Dangerous Gambit.” Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, April 18, 2024. https://carnegieendowment.org/2024/04/18/iran-and-israel-s-dangerous-gambit-pub-92254.
[5] McKernan,
Bethan, Julian Borger, Peter Beaumont, and Emma Graham-Harrison. “Iran Warns It
Will Strike Again with Greater Force If Israel or US Retaliate.” the Guardian,
April 14, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/14/iran-warns-strike-again-greater-force-us-israel-retaliate.
[6] Tehran
Times. “From Strategic Patience to Active Deterrence,” April 20, 2024. https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/497397/From-Strategic-Patience-to-Active-Deterrence.
Major General Jagatbir Singh, VSM (Retd) is a Distinguished Fellow at the USI of India. Commissioned in 1981 into the 18 Cavalry, he has held various important command and Staff appointments including command of an Armoured Division.
Article uploaded on 26-04-2024
Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the organisation that he belongs to or of the USI of India.