Israel reportedly responded to a nighttime barrage of more than 300 Iranian drones and missiles launched in response to Israel's own attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus on April 1. It is said that no agreement has been reached.
The Israeli military said 99% of the projectiles were intercepted by its own fighter jets and those of its allies, including the United States and Jordan. Others were stopped by Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system, acquired and operated with U.S. assistance.
Western diplomats and US President Joe Biden have reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that they do not support further retaliation, but some analysts believe last night's attack was The war, which some have suggested may be part of a broader ploy to draw the United States, a close ally of the United States, into the wider region.
Laying the foundation on April 1st?
In gauging how Israel would respond to the overnight attack, analysts focused on Israel's own attack on the Iranian consulate on April 1.
The attack, which killed two generals and five officers from the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), was carried out with little regard for Israel's allies and was launched shortly before the attack, according to at least one analyst interviewed by Al Jazeera. He said he was only informed.
SWP Berlin visiting researcher Hamidreza Azizi outlined two scenarios based on the motives behind Israel's attack on the Iranian consulate.
In the first scenario, Israeli attacks were carried out with little or no consideration of the consequences. The second attack was a deliberate attempt to draw Iran into a regional war and shift the focus of the United States and the West away from Israel's war in Gaza and toward Iran, the regional villain.
U.S. involvement will be important in both scenarios.
Despite its status as a regional superpower, Israel, exhausted by the six-month war in Gaza, has added at least 580,000 reservists, some 200,000 trained and divided between the army and the Revolutionary Guards. There would be little chance against the Iranian standing army of humans.
“Prime Minister Netanyahu's plan is clear: to divert attention from the war in Gaza and draw the United States and other Western allies back into the Middle East,” said Nomi Bar Yakov, an associate fellow at Chatham House. .
“Given the close relationship between Israel and the United States and Israel's dependence on American aid, Israel should have notified the United States of its plans to attack the Iranian consulate building where the Revolutionary Guards are based.
“By failing to do so, Israel has crossed a line that it should not cross. Israel's motives… must be questioned. Attacks on foreign consulates amount to attacks on foreign territory under international law. “It is clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu was aware that he had crossed a line and that Iran would respond with force.”
Iran has maintained steady pressure on Israel for years through its proxies, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has been engaged in a gunfight with Israel since before October 7.
Pay attention to the prize
Netanyahu's motives for drawing the United States into the war are likely deeper than Israel's interests alone and likely speak to concerns close to his heart, analysts say. do.
According to Israeli public opinion polls, the Prime Minister's popularity is at an extremely low level. Prime Minister Netanyahu built a reputation for claiming that the only thing standing between Israel and oblivion was him and his Likud party, but the surprise attack by Hamas-led fighters on October 7 destroyed his position. I hurt you a lot.
HA Hellyer, a Middle East security expert at the Carnegie Endowment, said: “Israel's options are whether Prime Minister Netanyahu, beleaguered at home and abroad, wants to seek Western sympathy for Tel Aviv in the wake of Iran's sophisticated cable attack.'' “It's most influenced by how you use it.” International Peace and Royal United Services Association.
In the months leading up to October, public dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been growing after his far-right government sought to force through changes that would impede Israel's independent judiciary.
In the months since October 7, protests have mounted over his handling of the Gaza war, as he is seen as having little interest in securing the release of the remaining prisoners taken from Israel in the war. There is.
The protests not only grew, but also turned into demonstrations against him and his rule.
Even the United States appears to have lost patience with Netanyahu, with a highly publicized invitation to Benny Gantz, a member of Israel's war cabinet, to visit Washington DC for talks.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has taken every opportunity to put himself at the forefront of rising nationalism and try to make up for lost ground as many Israelis have become reluctant to call for an end to the war.
“Turning point”
But regardless of how Israel portrays itself in this latest conflict, it is the United States that is directing the play.
“What we're hearing so far is that the United States is not interested in war and is signaling a unified Western diplomatic response to Iran, while at the same time calling for restraint,” Azizi said. It means that there is.”
U.S. signals appear to put Netanyahu's strategy in jeopardy.
“We are at a tipping point and the only solution is diplomacy,” Bar Yakov said. “A harsh military response risks dragging the region into further turmoil.”
Diplomatically, Israel's response to this attack mirrors its response to previous attacks, and despite this latest attack, the UN ambassador called for a meeting of the UN Security Council on the issue, again calling for Israel to They are trying to gather support from international public opinion. It is a response to Israel itself.
Moreover, Iran is seen as unlikely to fall victim to an Israeli attack, and inaction risks widening the rift both within the cabinet and within Israeli society.
“if [Netanyahu] “We believe that Washington, D.C., will decline to support an attack on Iran itself, in which case attacking a large number of proxies simultaneously could be an alternative option,” Hellyer said.
