Was the Israeli attack on Iran meaningless?
Monday, October 28, 2024
By: Nadim Koteich
The Israeli attack on Iran ended without a picture to summarize what happened. This absence will not be compensated for by the satellite images published by Reuters of some of the targeted sites, before and after the strike. These are important sites, including 20 sensitive military sites in Khuzestan, Ilam and Tehran, air defense systems protecting vital sites such as Imam Khomeini International Airport in Tehran, the Malad missile base near the capital, petrochemical plants, oil refineries and the Tang-e-Bijar gas field. The strikes also targeted radar stations in several provinces with the aim of undermining Iran’s ability to detect and respond to future attacks. Most importantly, the Israeli attack also included missile manufacturing facilities, specifically the solid fuel mixing plants for ballistic missiles at the massive Parchin military site near Tehran. Such images mean much more to specialists and researchers than they do to the game of myth-making and addressing public opinion, which is waiting for a visual show of force like the one that accompanied the recent Iranian missile attacks on Tel Aviv earlier this month.
If Israel had previously presented a massive visual show by bombing the port of Hodeidah last July, the question today arises as to why Tel Aviv has now decided to launch a strategic but quiet strike. When the port of Hodeidah was bombed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that there was no place “that our arm will not reach,” and his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant considered that “the fires currently raging in Hodeidah can be seen throughout the Middle East, and the significance is clear.”
So what is the significance of the quiet strike today?
The US administration succeeded in pushing Netanyahu to carry out a precise surgical strike that hit the heart of Iran’s strategic arsenal, without publicly insulting the Iranian regime. Iran understood what it should have understood through Israel’s demonstration of its operational proficiency, and realized the extent of its air defenses’ weakness in the face of an Israeli strike that lasted about 4 hours.
For Washington, this strike, which was carefully designed, whether in terms of its quiet form or in terms of its neutralization of nuclear and oil facilities, could provide Iran with an opportunity to descend from the tree without feeling publicly humiliated or shamefully humiliated. This could allow it to move towards political settlements instead of the cycle of shows and counter-shows that could push things towards open war in the Middle East.
Indirectly, Israel benefited from this performance by demonstrating to the world that its main goal is to disable Iran’s strategic capabilities, and to emphasize its decisive deterrence strategies, rather than escalating the public conflict that has become a concern for most of its allies.
Israel, after all the results it has achieved, needs a degree of self-restraint that will help reduce public concern about the performance of its government and army, and enhance international confidence that Netanyahu’s moves are calculated, precise, and under complete control.
Iran’s bravado… and Israel’s effectiveness
Moreover, this contrast between Iranian show-off strikes and long-term Israeli strikes highlights that Iran’s poor military performance is merely an extension of rhetorical bravado, and reflects its need to demonstrate strength to maintain internal morale and regional influence, in light of the erosion of its defensive and offensive capabilities. The calm Israeli approach to the recent strikes on Iran does not only involve demonstrating Israel’s decisive military superiority, but is also a psychological tactic aimed at portraying Iranian military displays as hollow maneuvers that fail to achieve tangible results while draining the Iranians’ scarce resources.
To comment, follow this link
