In a span of two days, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) unleashed a barrage of missiles and drones on targets across three neighboring countries: Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan.
In a span of two days, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) unleashed a barrage of missiles and drones on targets across three neighboring countries: Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan.
Was Iran’s move a calculated show of force to deter its enemies or a reckless act that endangered its own security and interests? The IRGC said the strikes were in retaliation for what it described as recent terrorist attacks that killed dozens of Iranians. But the attacks provoked strong condemnation from some of the countries hit, as well as from the United States and its allies, which accused Iran of escalating tensions and endangering regional stability.
Both sides may be right.
The IRGC claimed that the strikes targeted the perpetrators and backers of the attacks that rocked Iran over the past month. The first of these attacks took place on Dec. 15, 2023, when a group of armed assailants raided a police station in Rask, a town in the volatile province of Sistan and Baluchestan, near the border with Pakistan. The attack, which killed 12 Iranian police officers, was claimed by Jaish al-Adl, an extremist Sunni group that has carried out several attacks against Iranian security forces in the past.
The second attack was even more devastating. On Jan. 3, 2024, the anniversary of the U.S. assassination of IRGC commander Qassem Suleimani, Iran suffered the worst terrorist attack in its modern history. Two suicide bombers blew themselves up near Suleimani’s mausoleum in his hometown of Kerman, killing more than 90 people and injuring hundreds more. The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that it was part of its new global campaign to “kill them wherever you find them” and that it aimed to confront Iran’s “projects” in the region.
These attacks exposed Iran’s vulnerability to internal and external threats and challenged the Islamic Republic’s image of strength and stability. But its retaliation has raised the risks of a wider and more dangerous conflict in the region.
Iran has opted for a show of force that is already showing signs of backfiring. By striking targets in other countries, Iran violated their sovereignty and antagonized their governments, especially Iraq and Pakistan, which have been trying to maintain good relations with both Iran and the United States. Iraq responded by filing a formal complaint against Iran at the U.N. Security Council, while Pakistan initially suspended its high-level contacts with Iran, despite participating in a joint naval drill with it after the attacks. A day later, Pakistan carried out its own unprecedented missile and drone strikes inside Iran, claiming to hit Baloch separatists while reaffirming its respect for Iran’s sovereignty. Pakistan’s foreign ministry also sought to defuse the tensions, stressing that Iran was a “brotherly country” and that Pakistan had “great respect and affection” for the Iranian people. But the two countries are on the brink of a dangerous escalation.
Iran’s strikes also come at a time when the world’s attention is largely focused on Israel and its war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, which has put Iran’s adversary in a precarious position. In this context, Iran’s attacks serve to shift the spotlight to itself and endanger its ties with its neighbors. Iran could have been satisfied to watch the Gaza war unfold, which has increased Israel’s international isolation and its vulnerability, but its attacks may invite more scrutiny and pressure on itself.
Iran may have decided to prioritize a more forceful national security strategy over its diplomatic ties with friendly countries, which is evidenced by the IRGC’s public announcement of the strike in Pakistani territory for what is likely the first time. This comes as the government has faced criticism from hard-liners for being too passive and reluctant to retaliate against attacks in Iran or Iranian interests, especially after an Israeli strike killed a senior IRGC commander in Syria on Dec. 25. Iran seems to be signaling that it will adopt a more assertive and direct strategy against perceived threats beyond its borders.
This was evident at the ongoing meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian stated bluntly, “we have no hesitations when it comes to our national interests and those terrorist groups inside Pakistan and those affiliated with the Israeli regime in the Kurdistan region of Iraq.”
The IRGC also declared in its statement on the attack, “We assure our dear nation that the IRGC’s offensive operations will continue until the last drop of our martyrs’ blood is avenged.” This suggests that the recent missile strikes are not the final act of Iran’s revenge, but rather a component of a wider and more assertive strategy. This strategy explicitly aims to deter and punish Israel, the United States, and their regional allies.
Therefore, Iran’s missile strikes cannot be viewed in isolation, but rather as a part of the deepening regional rivalry between Israel and the so-called axis of resistance led by Iran and its allies. In this regard, the IRGC said that the strikes in Iraqi Kurdistan hit targets linked to Mossad, the Israeli spy agency, and that they were part of the retaliation for the killing of Sayyed Razi Mousavi, the IRGC commander who died on Dec. 25.
The strikes also served as a display of power and a message to Iran’s rivals, particularly Israel and the United States. Iran fired 24 missiles from three different regions within its borders to hit targets in Syria and Iraq. One of the missiles used in the strikes was the Kheibar Shekan (or the “fortress destroyer”), which has a range of 1,450 kilometers (900 miles) and had never been used. This missile is widely regarded as designed for targeting Israel, and its use in the strike on the alleged Islamic State-linked targets in Syria’s Idlib province can be seen as a major field test aimed at showing the weapon’s precision, power, and range to Israel and the United States.
While the IRGC boasted that it hit the intended targets with high accuracy and effectiveness, U.S. National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson challenged this claim, calling the strikes “reckless and imprecise.”
Nevertheless, the IRGC strikes caused death and destruction in Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish northern region. One of the victims was Peshraw Dizayee, a prominent Kurdish businessman, who was killed in his house in Erbil. Iranian media outlets accused Dizayee of running a security company that was a front for Mossad, and of aiding and harboring its operatives in Erbil.
The IRGC’s goal in the assassination was likely to send a warning to anyone who collaborates with Israel against Iran, implying that that they will face fatal consequences. Besides Dizayee’s house, the IRGC also targeted the home of a senior Kurdish intelligence officer and the intelligence headquarters of the Kurdistan region, according to Iraqi sources.
Another notable aspect of the Iranian strikes is their symbolic dimension: These were coordinated strikes on targets that the IRGC alleged were linked to both the Islamic State and Mossad. By equating Israel with the extremist group, Iran seeks to project its image as a leading power in the region and the Islamic world, and as a protector of the region against both.
Ultimately, Iran’s missile and drone strikes have shown its resolve and capability to strike back at its enemies. But Tehran has also provoked the ire and concern of its neighbors, as it has disregarded their sovereignty and interests. Those neighbors, including but not limited to Iraq and Pakistan, are caught in a dilemma: They want to maintain good relations with both Iran and the United States, but they also want to preserve their own security and stability. They may not buy Iran’s justification that its attacks were solely defensive and not intended to intimidate them.
The IRGC has made it clear that it has adopted a more offensive and preemptive approach to its national security, and that the strikes were only the first step. This means that such operations are likely to continue and escalate, adding more fuel to the fire in the already turbulent region.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
