Iran’s unprecedented bombardment of Israel over the weekend has changed the strategic equation of the Middle East, commentators have warned as the world awaits Israel’s response.
Tehran had deliberated for two weeks about how to react to an Israeli air strike that killed seven Iranian officers, including a top general, at the country’s embassy in Damascus. The answer came on Saturday evening, when Iran launched more than 170 explosive-laden drones at Israel, and around 120 ballistic missiles and 30 cruise missiles.
Iran’s leaders had hoped to find a “Goldilocks option that would placate their domestic audience and deter Israel without triggering an even bigger Israeli reprisal”, said The Economist. “What they settled on, though, may prove to be a strategic blunder that harms their interests.”
What did the commentators say?
“Iran isn’t a phantom boogeyman any more,” said Politico, “and that’s a godsend for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who can now turn Saturday’s drone and missile barrage by Tehran to his political advantage, as he pursues his war in Gaza, and potentially in Lebanon.”
Netanyahu has long pushed the idea that Tehran’s fundamentalist regime poses the most serious – and indeed existential – threat to Israel. Saturday’s drone and missile bombardment was Iran’s first direct military attack on Israeli territory and, according to Mohammad Jamshidi, a deputy chief of staff to Iran’s president, changes the “strategic equation” between Tehran and Israel.
But with Netanyahu under pressure at home and increasingly abroad over his conduct of the war in Gaza, Tehran now looks to have “let him off the hook”, said Politico. It has made the case for support for Israel “almost unanswerable”.
You only need to look at the near-universal condemnation of Iran and renewed support for Israel from the international community to see how the weekend’s events have moved the dial. US President Joe Biden said support for Israel is now “ironclad” while Rishi Sunak insisted Britain would “continue to stand up for Israel’s security”. Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme, Foreign Secretary David Cameron called it a “double defeat” for Iran as it had failed in its operation and shown itself to be “the malign influence in the region”.
Strong words were matched with action. France and Britain – Nato’s two European nuclear powers – both took part in the defence effort against the Iranian bombardment, along with the US as well as Israel’s Arab allies.
This last group might seem “a strange phrase to write in the midst of the war in Gaza, but it’s important to understand”, said David Frum in The Atlantic. Reuters reported the involvement of Jordan’s air force in intercepting and shooting down dozens of Iranian drones that violated its airspace, while the The Economist speculated that Saudi Arabia – a regional rival to Iran – may have provided surveillance and refuelling assistance to the defence effort.
“Alliances are a powerful asset,” said Frum. “They also come with a price, which is that allies’ views need to be consulted. Those allies, especially the United States, are saying: Pause here. That’s advice Israel may not like but would be wise to ponder.”
What next?
Tehran’s actions allow Netanyahu to “double down” on his war against Iran-backed Hamas in Gaza, and then possibly switch to Lebanon’s Hezbollah, another Iranian Shi’ite proxy, said Politico. The Israeli PM now has “greater leeway to cast the Gaza war as a struggle of national survival against a well-armed geostrategic heavyweight, led by Islamist fundamentalists pursuing nuclear arms”, added the news site.
As well as providing cover for Israel to pursue its military and geopolitical aims more aggressively, the bombardment also forces its war cabinet into a strategic corner, which could easily trigger a chain of events that leads to a full-blown war with Tehran.
This may have been Netanyahu’s plan all along, said Bruno Maçães in The New Statesman. He may have seen the attack against the Iranian embassy on 1 April “as a way to expand the war, placing it in a more favourable position”.
“Draw in Iran and the swelling American criticism of Israel’s actions will fall silent”, he said. Netanyahu may even think that a regional war “will be necessary sooner or later, and he may want to be the man conducting it”.
Iran’s operational failure in damaging Israel has also “exposed how weak they are when it comes to the conventional military threat”, Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told The Wall Street Journal.
This could carry escalatory risks of its own. “As neither the proxy attacks by Hezbollah or Hamas nor a direct barrage on Israel appear to work,” said the WSJ, “decision makers in Tehran may be increasingly tempted by the nuclear option.”