Israeli skies echoed with air raid sirens sounded across the state late Saturday, after Iran launched hundreds of ballistic and cruise missiles and drones in an unprecedented direct attack. The attack came in retaliation to the April 1 airstrike on Iran’s consular building in the Syrian capital of Damascus, which Tehran had blamed on Israel, and vowed to avenge.
There is no doubt any more that it's no longer a 'shadow war' between Iran and Israel.
With the airstrike killing at least 13, including Brig General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, Vice Commander of the Quds Force, the multinational spearhead of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) who was tasked to maintain Iran’s relations with Hezbollah in Lebanon and non-state groups in Syria, Iran’s retaliation vow reflected all possible signs of escalation, pushing the Middle East closer to a regional conflict.
Analysing images of the debris of the flattened consular building in Damascus points towards a calculated decision reinforced by impressive precision. The missiles fired at Iran’s consular office in Damascus reveals the motive — to decimate the structure and neutralise any and all targets inside. What was later revealed (by Tehran), the casualties included Zahedi, his deputy and other senior Iranian officers (who were leading Tehran’s initiatives in Syria and Lebanon). While military scholars speculated a response from Iran, the airstrike perpetually complicated the regional power dynamics in the Middle East.
Although there was no formal acknowledgement from Israeli authorities on the airstrike, sources within the Israeli intelligence community, speaking on the condition of anonymity, mentioned tracking Zahedi. One former intelligence analyst even confirmed his whereabouts, actively tracked by the Mossad and Israel’s technology-induced (oriented) military intelligence agency, Aman, since 2006.
Tracing the dots, the Israeli intelligence would have confirmed his presence through multiple sources, including human intelligence, to verify his presence inside the structure. This means a dedicated team provided constant surveillance tracing his interaction with potential who’s who, before being given a potential green light for the strike. Striking against a highly valued Iranian military leader would have definitely called for President Netanyahu’s approval, and he agreed despite pressure even from Israel’s allies.
Iran-Israel Conflict: LIVE UPDATES
From a strategic interpretation, the airstrike was a massive escalation from Tel Aviv, with the potential to further heighten not just the shadow war between Israel and Iran, but also shifting gears of war to a possible overt confrontation between the two nations. The airstrike not only reflected a calculative measure to prove its deterrence capabilities, but also demonstrated to the great powers its determination to counter.
Such a decision from Tel Aviv must have involved a variety of threat perceptions, ranging from imminent to serious or potential, sounded by various intelligence apparatus, which forced President Netanyahu to decimate or disrupt Iranian military/intelligence operations in Syria. The decision would have also emanated from evidence or potential incidents forcing Tel Aviv to permanently halt Tehran’s ambitions of expanding its influence in the region.
The timing and the nature of the strike reflect much deeper strategic play.
During our discussions with former IRGC commanders, the potential role of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad echoed every time we asked them about the potential role of an insider who could have possibly given real time whereabouts of Brig Gen Zahedi. To that end, one former IRGC commander mentioned the Syrian leader’s “backchannel arrangement” with Tel Aviv, with an intent to establish sovereign rule in Syria, by attaining freedom from Iranian proxies operating in the region. A Tehran-based scholar argued Tel Aviv’s decision to potentially escalate the situation as part of its broader offensive strategy, with an intent to shift the focus to Syria, camouflaging its combat operations in Gaza and legitimising its case to its biggest ally, the United States, garnering greater support.
EXPLAINED | Why Iran Attacked Israel By Invoking Article 51 Of UN Charter
Tehran was again facing the loss of a vital strategic asset in Zahedi, and a blow to its regional prestige. It was at a crossroads, similar to the one it found itself at after the killing of Qasem Soleimani in 2020. All eyes were on how Tehran was going to respond, keeping in mind its strategic expectations and objectives. The question that all military analysts and scholars had on their minds was whether Tehran would retain its aspirations for regional dominance with enough pragmatism to potentially avoid a full-scale conflict.
And Tehran did not.
After playing a shadow war, through proxies like Hezbollah, Iran launched a direct attack on Israel for the first time. According to Rear ADM Daniel Hagari, the official spokesperson of the Israeli MoD, almost 300 projectiles were launched, though over 99% of them were intercepted.
Calling it a very significant strategic success, Iran’s official spokesperson said they fired 170 drones, including 30 cruise and 120 ballistic missiles, towards Israel. Out of those, some ballistic missiles did breach the Israeli airspace, causing minor damages to Israeli air bases.
Israel’s military spokesperson cited the Arrow system, which shot down ballistic missiles outside the airspace, mentioning the involvement of “strategic partners” in neutralising the projectiles.
Moving beyond its tactical response, Tehran will be forced to reassess its existing regional strategy with respect to the Axis of Resistance, a coalition built around non-state violent groups to counter US and Israeli influence, which could (in the days to come) pronounce aggressive manoeuvres to counter Tel Aviv’s interests. However, the killing of a vital strategic asset like Zahedi reflects serious vulnerabilities that Tehran faces, especially when accumulating strength (through sustained influence) via proxies, echoing the significance of embassy annexes, in this case a consular facility. The April 1 airstrike has very well forced Tehran to recalibrate it existing regional strategy, but the IRGC needs a more sustainable approach (rather than nuances) to protect its commanders who play a pivotal role in not just expanding Tehran’s influence but shifting geopolitical dynamics in their favour.
When interpreted as a sheer act of provocation (for Tehran), Iranian leaders will be forced to navigate a complex terrain with greater strategic calculus.
Tehran may have silenced certain hardliners who had called for large-scale retaliation, but its response suggests no rush to maintain its regional prestige. While indirectly warning the US and Israel against further escalation, Tehran's measured retaliatory strike indicates a cautious approach. This restraint aims to avoid undermining regional stability and to prevent Israel from achieving its strategic goals, reflecting Tehran's balanced strategy.
That said, Tehran will also be forced to weigh its relationships with regional economies and potential global powers. Therefore, Iranian leaders will be forced to respond with much greater precision and careful calibration if Tel Aviv opts for another strike. This demonstrates resilience and a resolve to avoid an immediate counter-response that could jeopardise strategic objectives. Such caution is aimed at preventing a potential regional conflict or further escalation from Israel or the US, which could lead to a cascade of unpredictable consequences.
ALSO READ | Iran-Israel Tensions: India’s IMEC, I2U2 Initiatives Could Bear Impact, Says Ex-Envoy to Israel
If Tel Aviv chooses to strike, Tehran may continue to craft a balanced strategy, incorporating diplomatic engagement (with tactical options for Hezbollah in Gaza or Houthis at Red Sea) or exercising greater strategic caution to consolidate its position (influence in Syria and Lebanon). Tehran may aim to reduce the possibility of any escalation in the region while consolidating its influence in the Middle Eastern region’s power hierarchy. Furthermore, it may engage with regional economies on various diplomatic platforms, with the intent to rally international condemnation particularly in the United Nations.
Tracing Tehran’s pattern of response, the IRGC might potentially renew (perhaps escalate) its indirect approach (through influence or propaganda) with an aim to undermine Tel Aviv’s interests. In addition, the IRGC may also renew its intelligence footprint in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon, reinforcing its deterrence strategies without facing Israeli conventional military.
Strategically, the IRGC may aim to consolidate its influence within the Axis of Resistance. By harnessing shared concerns regarding Israeli actions (in Gaza), Tehran may open doors for greater engagement with potential allies, incorporating them in the Axis of Resistance. One such example could be with Lebanon, where Tehran may extend military cooperation, joint exercises, share intelligence or unify diplomatic efforts to condemn/possibly humiliate Tel Aviv in international forums such as the UN.
Anant Mishra is a visiting fellow at the International Centre for Policing and Security, University of South Wales. Christian Kaunert is Professor of International Security, DCU Dublin, and Professor of Policing and Security, University of South Wales.
[Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs, and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and views of ABP News Network Pvt Ltd.]
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
