Opinion | Iran Missile Attack: Crossing A Rubicon

May 27, 2024
Posted by: admin
Category: Iran

Iran would have calculated the risks while launching its offensive against Israel and decided that it needed to cross the Rubicon. It will be unfortunate if Israel comes to a similar conclusion

On April 13, Iran launched Operation ‘True Promise’, its response to Israel’s attack on its Consulate in Syria on April 1, which killed General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, the man reportedly in charge of coordinating the Quds Force’s operations in the region, his Deputy and several other IRGC members. Tehran fired a combination of more than 300 drones and missiles at Israeli military facilities. The attack was the first-ever direct strike launched against Israel from Iranian territory. A Rubicon has been crossed, at a time when the world is already consumed by two ongoing conflicts and growing tensions in the South China Sea.

The missile strikes were targeted and calibrated and were a massive attack aimed at overwhelming Israel’s missile defence system. It was more than mere signalling. Many analysts felt that there was an inevitability about Iran’s retaliation against Israel’s strike in Damascus. But until the drones and missiles took off, it was not clear whether they would convert a covert and indirect conflict by using proxies into an overt and direct one.

But as the details of Iran’s response and Israel’s success at countering it became clear, most policymakers have expressed optimism that further escalation has been avoided. But it is too soon to hope that the possibility that it may explode into a wider conflagration has abated as both sides are still rattling their sabres. Escalating blows which can lead to the US and Russia getting drawn in remains a concern.

THE ATTACK

While an Iranian retaliation was expected, the scale at which it came was far greater than what had been imagined. Over 300 drones, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles launched from multiple locations across Iran targeted Israeli military installations. With US support aircraft and the Israeli air defences including the Iron Dome, Davids Sling and the Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 systems were able to take on 99 per cent of the projectiles, this figure was as per Daniel Hagari, an Israeli military spokesman. The physical damage was limited and no fatalities were reported.You May Like Buy Pocket-Friendly Health Insurance Plan @₹21/Day*Health InsuranceGet Quote by Taboola Sponsored Links

But Iran also carried out the attack in a manner that exposed weaknesses in sophisticated air defence systems. It involved a large number of slow drones followed by dozens of ballistic missiles targeting the Negev Desert, followed by more sophisticated missiles striking the Netavim Air Base, home to the squadron responsible for the Damascus strike. However, these strikes only caused light structural damage. The attack overwhelmed the air defence system by forcing it to engage many low-grade rockets, showcasing that the missile defence system does work. Nevertheless, it is said that the cost of countering the incoming missiles was greater than the cost of the missiles fired at Israel.

However, hardliners in Israel demand retaliation. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that “we need a crushing attack”. Bezalel Smotrich, the Finance Minister, said, “If Israel hesitates, we will put ourselves and our children in existential danger”. While General Bagheri, the Iranian Chief of Staff, stated that “Israel had crossed a red line that was unbearable” by targeting the Iranian Consulate in Damascus, after the attack, he said, “We see this operation as a complete result and there is no intention to continue the operation”. This statement was tailored to tread a fine balance between projecting military strength and avoiding retaliation from Israel. To quote CNN, the “attack seemed choreographed to minimise casualties while maximising spectacle”.

IRAN’S USE OF PROXIES

For years, Iran has sought to fight Israel by providing arms and funding a collection of proxies that includes Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It also includes Syria, Yemen’s Houthis, and paramilitary organisations in Iraq. These groups were their means of countering Saudi Arabia, the US and ISIS, but since the start of the war in the Gaza Strip last October, these proxies have helped operations against Israel. In addition to proxies, there is the nuclear dimension with reports stating that Iran’s enrichment capability is now closer than ever to producing a weapon that Israel sees as an existential threat.RELATED STORIES

While the West felt that Iran had been contained and even isolated, Iran developed a strategy to empower proxy militias and influence operations in the region while maintaining plausible deniability. Another consistency of Iran has been its support for the Palestinian cause and its unwavering anti-Israel stance.

In response to Iranian proxies, Israel has targeted Iran in its own manner. It has repeatedly carried out covert activity on Iranian soil, including operations targeting nuclear facilities and scientists as well as conventional facilities and its key generals such as General Qasem Soleimani.

While both sides were wary of letting their tit-for-tat attacks get out of hand, that delicate balance changed on October 7 following the Hamas attack on Israel and the overwhelming force used by Israel in retaliation in Gaza. Following this, there has been a change in the way the Middle has looked at Israel and Iran’s proxies, especially the Houthis’ stepped-up attacks against Israel in a display of solidarity. These assaults have caused 186 casualties among US troops serving in the Middle East. The Houthis attacked ships in the Red Sea, causing transit through the Suez Canal to fall drastically. According to Congressional testimony in March by General Michael Kurilla, head of the US Central Command, the escalation in strikes by Iran’s allies and subsequent US military responses have emboldened terrorist organisations not aligned with Iran, such as ISIS.

The Israel-Hamas War accelerated a shift in the region that benefitted Iran. Ten days after Hamas attacked Israel, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, had warned that a ground invasion of Gaza could “open the gates of hell”—that is, trigger an overwhelming response directed not just at Israel but also at American interests and assets in the region. In response, Israel attacked Iranian-backed groups in Lebanon and Syria, and then Iranian military personnel. Between early December and late March, Israel killed nearly a dozen commanders and members of the IRGC which culminated in the airstrike in Damascus. The Damascus strike had serious consequences. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, stated that “attacking our Consulate is like attacking our soil.” He and a host of political and military leaders promised to punish Israel.

SHIFT IN IRANIAN THINKING

In a letter to the UNSC, Iran said that the action was in the inherent rights of its self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. However, Iran’s response highlights an apparent shift in its thinking. For years, its approach toward Israel and the US largely revolved around encouraging proxy groups without resorting to direct provocative retaliations. The strategy was based on networks Iran had built which gave the country the ability to engage Israel without risking direct engagements, exacting costs while maintaining plausible deniability. But Iran’s “strategic patience” could no longer remain elastic and be seen as a sign of weakness. Some observers feel that it was a necessity as Iran’s prestige was involved though it was aware of its weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

But this escalation towards confrontation has been building up over the past few months. In January, Iran struck targets in Northern Iraq and Syria, claiming they were linked to Israel and the Islamic State. They also attacked operating bases of militants in Pakistan stating that they had struck Iran. Now, Iran has attacked Israel. While the symbolism of the attack matters more than the damage caused, the ripples around the globe which include the rise in crude prices and plunging of stock markets will resonate.

THE FALLOUTS

Iran may celebrate avenging the Damascus strike and flexing its military muscle, but it has exposed the limits to its offensive capabilities, given that the overwhelming majority of its weapons were intercepted. At the same time, the international narrative has shifted from the humanitarian crisis in Gaza to Israel being targeted by Iranian missiles.

President Biden has been under domestic and global criticism over his inability to restrain Netanyahu in Gaza. But now with Israel having been attacked, the public opinion and the Jewish lobby will compel him to increase the support to Israel. In a statement, President Biden reiterated the “ironclad” US support for Israel’s security and in a call with Netanyahu and the G7 leaders meeting, the day after the attack, extended its support to Israel while urging restraint.

If Israel does respond by striking Iranian territory, the situation could spiral out of control. Direct hostilities can not only result in large casualties but also lead to sucking the US and Russia into the mess with fallouts which resonate beyond the region and across the globe. There is also a fear that fresh sanctions or actions against Iran could push it closer towards Russia and China.

For India, an Iran-Israel confrontation is worse than that between Russia and Ukraine. This is because it is much closer to us geographically, and both are countries with whom we have close relations. We are part of the I2U2 with Israel, have defence ties with them and our planned IMEC goes through Israel. With Iran, we have an old civilisational relationship. They were one of our largest suppliers of crude. The Chabahar Port is being developed there and our North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) runs through Iran. This apart, our major trade links run through the Red Sea and the Straits of Hormuz. Our interests in this region are much deeper.

CONCLUSION

The attacks by Iran demonstrate that they were willing to risk their own security by confronting Israel directly with the potential of drawing the US into the conflict. Despite sanctions, Iran has demonstrated both resilience and relevance. Iran would have calculated the risks while launching its offensive and decided that it needed to cross the Rubicon. It will be unfortunate if Israel comes to a similar conclusion.

The attack has also shattered any hopes of a peace process and de-escalation of the Israel-Gaza conflict. At another level, it has benefitted Israel as the US will now be forced to pump more military hardware in their direction. If Israel does retaliate, Iran too could climb up the escalation ladder. While the region did not explode on April 13, it is teetering on the edge, and the risk of a wider and more dangerous conflict persists. While Iran and Israel may see an opportunity in chaos, chaos can be threatening in many ways. Calibrating risks has its limits.Top VideosView All

May 27, 2024, 07:05 ISTCongress Latest News | I.N.D.I.A Bloc To Hold A Key Meeting On June 1 Reveals A Congress Source
May 27, 2024, 07:05 ISTCyclone Remal Updates: Cyclone Remal Makes Landfall On Bangladesh’s Coast | English News | News18
May 26, 2024, 20:05 ISTManish Tewari Fires at BJP in Chandigarh: Claims Decade of Inaction
May 26, 2024, 19:05 ISTHamas launches big missile attack towards Tel Aviv
May 26, 2024, 19:05 ISTNicki Minaj Cancels England Show After Detention at Amsterdam Airport

The question on everybody’s lips is – what happens next?

The author is an Army veteran. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.Tags: