[🇮🇷] Breaking! Israel has attacked Iran. Live Coverage

[Lulldapull]

I am not questioning the strategic thought process and success of Iran's long game that directly (and indirectly) forms the only threat axis against Israel and also (in Yemen) pretty much put the Saudis in their place.

That is to be admired (militarily). But that won't extend to Iran can win a conventional war in direct confrontation with Israel or it showed superiority over Israel. It did what it had to do. In fact it did the same thing in Baluchistan a few months back to make a point only to be retaliated by Pakistan. It did the same exact thing in ISrael.
Tactical engagement on one side, but I do feel that Iran got played, despite its better acumen. Prior to Iran's attack, Israel was under pressure everywhere for its conduct in Gaza. More than it has ever experienced historically. Gaza was the news, west was reaching its limits and Biden was criticizing Israel publicly almost every week.

Israel knew that by attacking the embassy in Damascus, Iran will follow through and if it does, nobody will remember Israel's atrocities and narrative will shift. Thats exactly what happened and Iran walked into a strategic trap. All western nations lined up (including Arab ones) to support Israel militarily and here again Israel was a victim. Just look at this forum, nobody has posted on Gaza invasion thread for the last 5 days as if it never happened.

To summarize , Iran walked into a trap set by Israel where Israel played the victim in the world and the world (and us) forgot about Gaza and got intertwined on Iran's success or not or Israel's success or not against Iran.

As for Ukraine/Russia, lets see if this tactic works. It was a stronger Russia with USSR (with Ukraine in it) that eventually gave up on Afghanistan. With $61BN more in funding coming, there may be a reprieve, at least for the rest of this year. One thing that will Ukrainians in is if Trump wins that Russia prevailed. Otherwise its a war of attrition and missiles and industrial capacity.

But that opinion is better to discuss in Ukraine thread, not here

This Israel type drama was exactly the same thing going on throughout the post WW2 era until the 80's with South Africa. Same same! A hated euro colony practicing apartheid and brutally suppressing black people. This shiit went on forever until da Zulu's and the ANC got organized and joined Angola with Cuban mercenaries in a direct military/ guerilla confrontation against Pretoria. The south African whites realized their times up!......The west withdrew support, carted the nukes out da back door and almost all the South African whites quietly left for Canada, UK, Australia and Holland. I believe if Iran pressurizes Isra-heel long enough, it will crack. Like I said, it will be a very sudden event too when it happens. Just like Afghanistan with Biden saying we have a robust military, the ANA is well trained and adequately manned, and then a few weeks later the unthinkable happened. What I wrote here, is exactly what a former South African ex military commander told me when I worked in Perth Australia with him on a resource project.

 

[4MikeEcho]

It wasn't Black Sparrow but ‘Rampage system’. ISRAEL has successfully hit an Iranian S-300 site in that day near Natanz with the “Rampage’ supersonic air launched missile without being detected.

Report: Israel used air-to-surface missile called ‘The Rampage’ in Iran attack

* * *

www.timesofisrael.com

Much like Iran demonstrated that it can launch mass attack , Israel demonstrated that it can get within 200 miles standoff and strike a pin-point target. The unwritten threat was that if they put a nuke warhead both sides would succeed with their doctrine.

One thing I will say that is that its not that often that two countries make a point but never want to cross the brink. Pakistan and India have done this.

Imagine if Iraq/Iran did this in 1980, and never crossed the brink to all out war, Israel would be in a more precarious situation now

 

[Old School]

UukMuch like Iran demonstrated that it can launch mass attack , Israel demonstrated that it can get within 200 miles standoff and strike a pin-point target. The unwritten threat was that if they put a nuke warhead both sides would succeed with their doctrine.
One thing I will say that is that its not that often that two countries make a point but never want to cross the brink. Pakistan and India have done this.

Imagine if Iraq/Iran did this in 1980, and never crossed the brink to all out war, Israel would be in a more precarious situation now

1980 was at the height of the cold war with Saddam Hossain playing both the US and USSR while being a USSR client. Ayatollah was in Iran and Soviets in Afghanistan. Old KGB archives showed that USSR was to keen to have both Iran and Pakistan to be at war with their neighbors and preoccupied. Pakistan and India were wiser. However, Pakistan is still paying for its greatest strategic mistake of taking part in Afghan mujahedin project. It will haunt Pakistan in the coming days too.

 

[Saif]

Iran retaliation

ON THE night of April 13, Iran attacked Israel for the first time in history with drones and missiles. Israel claimed that Iran had launched 170 drones, more than 309 cruise missiles and 120 ballistic missiles. Iran did not specify the...

www.newagebd.net

Iran retaliation
Mohammad Abdur Razzak 26 April, 2024, 00:00

ON THE night of April 13, Iran attacked Israel for the first time in history with drones and missiles. Israel claimed that Iran had launched 170 drones, more than 309 cruise missiles and 120 ballistic missiles. Iran did not specify the number of drones and missiles fired into Israel. Iranian attacks came as a retaliation to Israel's strike on Iran's consulate in Damascus, Syria on April 1, which killed 13 people, including seven members of Iran Revolutionary Guard Corp and two of them were majors general. After the attack, the Iranian armed forces chief of staff said, 'The operation had achieved all of its objectives and was over.' What were Iran's objectives?

Iran's chief of staff did not explain the objectives of Iran's operation, code-named True Promise. Understandably, the fundamental objective was to launch an attack to avenge Israeli attack on Iranian consulate, which is Iran's sovereign territory under the Vienna Convention. The Associated objectives are (1) to assure the domestic audience that Iran is not weak, (2) demonstrate Iran's long-distance attack capability, (3) test own tactics and weapons in long-distance air warfare, and (4) challenge Israeli military's invincibility.

Iran's attack had two principal dimensions — political and military. On the political front, it was a telegraphic attack of drones and missiles telling all players about the impending attack. Iran did not want to catch Israel off-guards to avoid a full-scale war. According to Iran's foreign minister, Tehran informed the United States that its attack on Israel would be 'limited' and also told regional neighbours of its planned strikes 72 hours in advance. Iran wanted the United States and its allies to know of the plan and, perhaps, also the timing of the attack allowing Israel and its allies to have adequate air defences in place. Drones were in the air for nine hours, allowing sufficient time to the United States, Israel and its Arab allies to intercept projectiles in the air.

The principal purpose of the telegraphic attack was to avoid a full-scale war but to resolutely demonstrate Iran's military resolve. A full-scale war would mean Israel's proxies, the United States and the United Kingdom, fighting Iran. Iran could not afford to take that risk. However, Iran claims to have an Israeli intelligence centre close to the Syrian border and an airbase had been destroyed 'to a significant extent and put out of operation'.

Iran also claims to have damaged Israeli strategic Nevatim airbase in the Negev desert which was used to attack Iranian consulate. Mohsen Abdollahi, a Tehran-based professor, said that Iran's defensive attacks against a decade of Israeli cyber and military attacks on civilian targets and individuals in Iran were limited and had the lowest human casualties. Why? Because Iran did not want to expand the war in the region. The message of Iran's attack is: 'Stop the attack on Iran or you will face a real attack.'

The military dimension of the attack was Iran testing its tactics and its reach. Iran orchestrated a three-stage or three waves of attack in succession. First, the low-cost drones, Shahed 136, were fired followed by cruise missiles with bomblets as warheads and, third, ballistic missiles with reduced payload. Drones triggered Iran's iron dome missiles, cruise missiles with flare like bomblets activated patriots and ballistic missiles entered Israeli air space while air defences were engaged with cheap drones and flare like bomblets. The warhead detached from ballistic missile with acceleration to hit the target quickly. Apart from assessing political and military impact on the ground, the balance of the attack and defence is also weighed in terms costs. The attack cost Iran around $60–68 million and the defence cost Israel between $1.1 billion and $1.3 billion.

Another political frontier of the confrontation was Arab nations taking side with Israel. Jordan, 'a country with a queen of Palestine heritage' shot down a number of Iranian drones and missiles to defend Israel. Jordanian prime minister ridiculously claimed to have done so in 'self defence' although the Iranian attack was directed against Israel. Saudi Arabia and the UAE shared intelligence with the US and opened their air space to help intercept Iranian drones and missiles. Some commentators do not view Saudi and UAE role in this case 'as betrayal of the Iranians or greater Muslim cause.'

Iran reportedly wanted Arab countries also to pass intelligence to the US. This tactic has similarity with Iran's attack on Al Asad air base in Iraq in 2021 after the US drone strike killed General Qassem Soleimani. The telegraphic attack saved everyone's face. Iran's government can say its people at home that it attacked Israel, Israel can claim to have shot down 99 per cent of the incoming projectiles and protected its citizens, the US can claim to have defended Israel and Arab countries except Jordan can pretend they were not involved. The whole transactions look win-win for all parties. But it will not stop Israel there.

Israel announced a hit back at Iran. Israel did not give any indication when it will strike back. But there are indications where it will hit. Israel will target Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran warned of retaliation with greater force never used before. Israel and the US will be happy to drag Iran into a wider war.

Mohammad Abdur Razzak (safera690@yahoo.com), a retired commodore of the Bangladesh navy, is a security analyst.​

 

[Saif]

Iran retaliation

ON THE night of April 13, Iran attacked Israel for the first time in history with drones and missiles. Israel claimed that Iran had launched 170 drones, more than 309 cruise missiles and 120 ballistic missiles. Iran did not specify the...

www.newagebd.net

Iran retaliation
Mohammad Abdur Razzak 26 April, 2024, 00:00

ON THE night of April 13, Iran attacked Israel for the first time in history with drones and missiles. Israel claimed that Iran had launched 170 drones, more than 309 cruise missiles and 120 ballistic missiles. Iran did not specify the number of drones and missiles fired into Israel. Iranian attacks came as a retaliation to Israel's strike on Iran's consulate in Damascus, Syria on April 1, which killed 13 people, including seven members of Iran Revolutionary Guard Corp and two of them were majors general. After the attack, the Iranian armed forces chief of staff said, 'The operation had achieved all of its objectives and was over.' What were Iran's objectives?

Iran's chief of staff did not explain the objectives of Iran's operation, code-named True Promise. Understandably, the fundamental objective was to launch an attack to avenge Israeli attack on Iranian consulate, which is Iran's sovereign territory under the Vienna Convention. The Associated objectives are (1) to assure the domestic audience that Iran is not weak, (2) demonstrate Iran's long-distance attack capability, (3) test own tactics and weapons in long-distance air warfare, and (4) challenge Israeli military's invincibility.

Iran's attack had two principal dimensions — political and military. On the political front, it was a telegraphic attack of drones and missiles telling all players about the impending attack. Iran did not want to catch Israel off-guards to avoid a full-scale war. According to Iran's foreign minister, Tehran informed the United States that its attack on Israel would be 'limited' and also told regional neighbours of its planned strikes 72 hours in advance. Iran wanted the United States and its allies to know of the plan and, perhaps, also the timing of the attack allowing Israel and its allies to have adequate air defences in place. Drones were in the air for nine hours, allowing sufficient time to the United States, Israel and its Arab allies to intercept projectiles in the air.

The principal purpose of the telegraphic attack was to avoid a full-scale war but to resolutely demonstrate Iran's military resolve. A full-scale war would mean Israel's proxies, the United States and the United Kingdom, fighting Iran. Iran could not afford to take that risk. However, Iran claims to have an Israeli intelligence centre close to the Syrian border and an airbase had been destroyed 'to a significant extent and put out of operation'.

Iran also claims to have damaged Israeli strategic Nevatim airbase in the Negev desert which was used to attack Iranian consulate. Mohsen Abdollahi, a Tehran-based professor, said that Iran's defensive attacks against a decade of Israeli cyber and military attacks on civilian targets and individuals in Iran were limited and had the lowest human casualties. Why? Because Iran did not want to expand the war in the region. The message of Iran's attack is: 'Stop the attack on Iran or you will face a real attack.'

The military dimension of the attack was Iran testing its tactics and its reach. Iran orchestrated a three-stage or three waves of attack in succession. First, the low-cost drones, Shahed 136, were fired followed by cruise missiles with bomblets as warheads and, third, ballistic missiles with reduced payload. Drones triggered Iran's iron dome missiles, cruise missiles with flare like bomblets activated patriots and ballistic missiles entered Israeli air space while air defences were engaged with cheap drones and flare like bomblets. The warhead detached from ballistic missile with acceleration to hit the target quickly. Apart from assessing political and military impact on the ground, the balance of the attack and defence is also weighed in terms costs. The attack cost Iran around $60–68 million and the defence cost Israel between $1.1 billion and $1.3 billion.

Another political frontier of the confrontation was Arab nations taking side with Israel. Jordan, 'a country with a queen of Palestine heritage' shot down a number of Iranian drones and missiles to defend Israel. Jordanian prime minister ridiculously claimed to have done so in 'self defence' although the Iranian attack was directed against Israel. Saudi Arabia and the UAE shared intelligence with the US and opened their air space to help intercept Iranian drones and missiles. Some commentators do not view Saudi and UAE role in this case 'as betrayal of the Iranians or greater Muslim cause.'

Iran reportedly wanted Arab countries also to pass intelligence to the US. This tactic has similarity with Iran's attack on Al Asad air base in Iraq in 2021 after the US drone strike killed General Qassem Soleimani. The telegraphic attack saved everyone's face. Iran's government can say its people at home that it attacked Israel, Israel can claim to have shot down 99 per cent of the incoming projectiles and protected its citizens, the US can claim to have defended Israel and Arab countries except Jordan can pretend they were not involved. The whole transactions look win-win for all parties. But it will not stop Israel there.

Israel announced a hit back at Iran. Israel did not give any indication when it will strike back. But there are indications where it will hit. Israel will target Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran warned of retaliation with greater force never used before. Israel and the US will be happy to drag Iran into a wider war.

Mohammad Abdur Razzak (safera690@yahoo.com), a retired commodore of the Bangladesh navy, is a security analyst.​

 

[Saif]

Israel-Iran war threat fades, but danger unchanged for Gazans

UP UNTIL April 1, Israel was increasingly being viewed by western leaders as a near-rogue state. Though US president Joe Biden was still not calling for a...

www.newagebd.net

Israel-Iran war threat fades, but danger unchanged for Gazans
by Paul Rogers 28 April, 2024, 00:02

Palestinian children stand amid the debris of a house destroyed by overnight Israeli bombardment in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip on April 27 as the conflict between Israel and Hamas continues. | Agence France-Presse

Attention has returned to atrocities Israel is inflicting on Palestinians, but Biden still will not call for ceasefire, writes Paul Rogers

UP UNTIL April 1, Israel was increasingly being viewed by western leaders as a near-rogue state. Though US president Joe Biden was still not calling for a ceasefire — despite being the only world leader who can do so — he was reportedly ramping up pressure on the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to end the siege on Gaza, allow far more aid into the enclave, and work towards an end to the fighting.

But the entire situation changed after Israel launched an air attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria. Amid fears of a probable military response from Iran, Israel became a western ally once more. When Iran's counterattack did indeed come, on April 13, it was met by not only the IDF, but also by US, British and French militaries, with additional support from Arab nations allied to the West, such as Jordan.

After weeks of escalating tensions between the two countries, Israel had been expected to deliver a major attack on Iran in the days before it bombed Damascus. Its eventual strike killed 16 people, but having followed warnings that Israel might target Iran's civil and presumed military nuclear programme, it was considered a small-scale affair by many Western analysts – so much so that hard-line members of Netanyahu's coalition were deeply critical of it.

Whatever Netanyahu's motives in the Damascus attack, one result was briefly minimising the media coverage of Israel's ongoing war on Gaza. The number of Palestinians killed is nearing 35,000, including at least 12,000 children, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry, with double that number having been injured and many more missing.

For reasons not entirely understood, both Israel and Iran have chosen to avoid an escalating war, with Iran's foreign ministry making clear that its strike was a direct response to Israel's, and that it would take no further action unless the IDF did so. This decision has eased some of the tensions in the region, at least among leaders, and has returned the spotlight to the atrocities in Gaza.

This week, it was reported that Palestinian civil defence crews had uncovered a mass grave in the grounds of the Nasser Medical Complex following the withdrawal of IDF troops from Khan Younis, a city in south Gaza. The bodies of 180 Palestinians, mostly children and women, have so far been recovered. The news follows the discovery of another mass grave, where the bodies of 30 Palestinians were found, at al-Shifa Hospital last week.

Netanyahu's determination to destroy Hamas in Gaza appears as strong as ever. The IDF's attacks are intensifying and it still plans to launch a full-scale assault on Rafah, in the far south-west of Gaza, in the coming weeks. Around 1.4 million Palestinians are sheltering in Rafah, whose pre-war population was 280,000, with many having fled to the supposedly 'safe' city after Israel ordered the evacuation of northern Gaza last year.

While the Israeli prime minister would no doubt like to clear Hamas out of Rafah, that may not be essential if he still plans, as he suggested at the offset of the war, to contain Gaza's entire population — 2.2 million people in late 2023 — to the west of the city, in the southwest of the Gazan strip, with deep buffer zones separating it from Israel. There, Netanyahu's government says Gazans would be in some way supported by the 'international community' — the implication being that they will not be Israel's problem. Their lives would be hugely constricted even compared to the pre-war situation, when the entire Gaza Strip was already a huge, densely populated open prison with border guards instead of jailers. It would become an even more wretched place — far more overcrowded and closely garrisoned.

In this scenario, some in Netanhayu's government have suggested the whole of the north of Gaza would be settled by Israeli Jews, with the coast particularly attractive for new seaside residences. In time, and perhaps over some years, some Palestinians would find the means to pay illegal smugglers to get them out of their crowded confinement and to elsewhere in the Middle East and beyond.

If the hard-right in Netanyah's Likud Party becomes a more powerful part of his coalition, a similar process could be expanded across the West Bank, a steady movement towards fulfilling the party's policy of Israeli sovereignty from the river to the sea.

In the meantime, negotiations between Israel and Hamas are on hold, with mediator Qatar increasingly dubious about prospects for progress as both sides refuse to move on conditions the other deems to be red lines. The IDF is stepping up its offensive operations across the West Bank — having killed ten Palestinians in an attack on the Nur Shams refugee camp on Saturday and launching further lethal attacks on Palestinian towns and villages in the area, according to a local source in the area who wishes to remain anonymous.

In one of the few visible signs of Washington's pressure on Israel, the US is likely to sanction the IDF's Netzah Yehuda battalion — a unit of ultra-orthodox Israeli Jews — for human rights abuses, including the death of an 80-year-old Palestinian-American man in 2022. The sanctions will reportedly mean US military equipment sold to Israel cannot be used by the battalion, which will also no longer be able to take part in training with the US army.

While this may suggest a hardening of a US stance, it comes alongside the congressional decision to agree a $26b support package to Israel, mostly for weapons. In short, the burst of tension over Israeli-Iranian relations and the risk of war has eased and the emphasis returns to the ongoing war, mainly on Gaza but increasingly in the West Bank as well. As the death toll rises, Netanyahu and his team remain determined to continue the war and there is little sign that Biden will force an early end.

Qantara.de, April 24. Paul Rogers is emeritus professor of peace studies in the peace studies and international relations department at Bradford University and an honorary fellow at the Joint Service Command and Staff College.​

 

[4MikeEcho]

Iran played into the Israel trap of deflecting tension from the misery in Gaza through the 2-3 week interlude. It took a few thousand students across US and European universities to bring it back to the forefront.

Btw, I know the Govts are coopted and corrupted but where is the general population or at least the student population in muslim countries: are they protesting?

 

[Old School]

Iran played into the Israel trap of deflecting tension from the misery in Gaza through the 2-3 week interlude. It took a few thousand students across US and European universities to bring it back to the forefront.

Btw, I know the Govts are coopted and corrupted but where is the general population or at least the student population in muslim countries: are they protesting?

People or students in Muslim countries are generally not revolutionary type unless a superpower is funding them. We had a big communist student movement in the 1960s in Pakistan with Soviet Funding. Brutal government crackdown including enforced disppearance made the west Pakistan almost communist free. The biggest student movement backed by the communists took place in Pakistan in 1969. Many students were killed. However, the East-Pakistan became then the hotbed of the communists as the Chinese government did not want anymore crackdown on the communists and the East-Pakistani administration and poeple were sympathertic to the communists. It was the pro-Soviet sepraratists who played the key role of the East-Pakistan separetists movement. Our Pakistani media still suppress and distort a lot of interesting info about that tragedy because many high profile politicians and civil-military officials were on the Soviet payroll at that time.

 

[Lulldapull]

People or students in Muslim countries are generally not revolutionary type unless a superpower is funding them. We had a big communist student movement in the 1960s in Pakistan with Soviet Funding. Brutal government crackdown including enforced disppearance made the west Pakistan almost communist free. The biggest student movement backed by the communists took place in Pakistan in 1969. Many students were killed. However, the East-Pakistan became then the hotbed of the communists as the Chinese government did not want anymore crackdown on the communists and the East-Pakistani administration and poeple were sympathertic to the communists. It was the pro-Soviet sepraratists who played the key role of the East-Pakistan separetists movement. Our Pakistani media still suppress and distort a lot of interesting info about that tragedy because many high profile politicians and civil-military officials were on the Soviet payroll at that time.

As soon as da Pashto or Baloch got some exposure to education, he turned into a venemous Marxist. We had a saying back then that falana khan has turned sorkha (red) and Bhutto sahb was in bed wid Mao sahb, even on his death bed the guy holding Mao’s hand was our Bhutto sahb.

Lunn to luggnay thay hamaray no?

Bhutto brought in toxic socialism into our society whilst he consolidated his power base and sucked in all da wealth like a party boss.

Then when Kissinger sahb told him dat da USSR has fukked us in de ass in Vietnam and we want yous to avenge dis infamy in Afghanistan, Bhutto sahb refused to play da game. Then he got hanged for it….

Zia ul Fuckk was then imposed on us! By Henry Kissinger.

Subhanallah!

 

[Old School]

As soon as da Pashto or Baloch got some exposure to education, he turned into a venemous Marxist. We had a saying back then that falana khan has turned sorkha (red) and Bhutto sahb was in bed wid Mao sahb, even on his death bed the guy holding Mao’s hand was our Bhutto sahb.

Lunn to luggnay thay hamaray no?

Bhutto brought in toxic socialism into our society whilst he consolidated his power base and sucked in all da wealth like a party boss.

Then when Kissinger sahb told him dat da USSR has fukked us in de ass in Vietnam and we want yous to avenge dis infamy in Afghanistan, Bhutto sahb refused to play da game. Then he got hanged for it….

Zia ul Fuckk was then imposed on us! By Henry Kissinger.

Subhanallah!

Bhutto was a landlord with an Indian passport in his pocket but played drama as a Pakistani socialist. He was not officially allowed to do politics in Pakistan due to dual nationality, which is illegal by Pakistani law. What a hypocrite !! Bhutto was taking money from everyone - communist or imperialist didn't matter to him. He took money from the KGB to break Pakistan by creating an artificial crisis followed by Operation Searchlight. Yusuf Haroon of the Dawn group was his cashier for all the Soviet money.
He then wanted to be the leader of third-world countries, competing with Indira Gandhi and Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Srilanka. Finally, his over-cynicism got him killed. He was beaten to death by an army baton in the jail, though officially, it was shown that he was hanged to death. No autopsy was ever done, similar to his daughter.

 

[Lulldapull]

Bhutto was a landlord with an Indian passport in his pocket but played drama as a Pakistani socialist. He was not officially allowed to do politics in Pakistan due to dual nationality, which is illegal by Pakistani law. What a hypocrite !! Bhutto was taking money from everyone - communist or imperialist didn't matter to him. He took money from the KGB to break Pakistan by creating an artificial crisis followed by Operation Searchlight. Yusuf Haroon of the Dawn group was his cashier for all the Soviet money.
He then wanted to be the leader of third-world countries, competing with Indira Gandhi and Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Srilanka. Finally, his over-cynicism got him killed. He was beaten to death by an army baton in the jail, though officially, it was shown that he was hanged to death. No autopsy was ever done, similar to his daughter.

All we got were traitors from the 70’s onwards. Worst leaders imaginable. Broke our country and insulted us and got us involved in that jahil aass Afghanistan. Look at us now…..

 

[Saif]

Israel’s diversionary attack on Iran has set off a new security crisis in West Asia

Netanyahu is unlikely to favour such a ceasefire since his unpopularity would lead to his overthrow, the revival of criminal cases against him, and his possible incarceration.

www.thedailystar.net

Israel's diversionary attack on Iran has set off a new security crisis in West Asia
The standoff has shattered Israel's strategic superiority, exposed its dependence on the US, and heightened the risk of a nuclear conflict.

Demonstrators wave Iran's flag and Palestinian flags as they gather in front of the British Embassy in Tehran on April 14, 2023. PHOTO: AFP

The exchange of drone and missile attacks between Israel and Iran over three weeks in April has taken West Asia to new levels of insecurity, while changing the regional strategic scenario to Israel's disadvantage.

The recent confrontations began on April 1 when Israeli aircraft attacked the building housing the Consular section of the Iranian embassy in Damascus and killed the Iranian Al Quds Force commander in Syria and Lebanon, General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, along with another general and five other officials, all of them senior members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

This was the most serious attack on the IRGC since the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani by American missiles in January 2020. Zahedi was a high-profile Iranian military leader, having earlier held senior positions in the country's armed forces and intelligence. Zahedi's killing followed the Israeli assassination in Damascus of IRGC General Syed Raza Mousavi last December, and that of Hamas official Saleh al-Arouri in Beirut in January.

The Israel-Iran military exchanges

Israel claimed that the embassy premises were a legitimate target since they were being used to plan attacks on Israeli and US assets. Israeli spokespersons ignored the fact that almost all embassies globally, including the US and Israeli embassies, have military and intelligence officials who, in their respective embassies, plan attacks on their countries' enemies in the host or neighbouring countries. However, most Western countries failed to condemn the attack.

Since Iran in the past has generally avoided hitting Israeli targets directly after attacks on its assets in Iran and in the neighbourhood, the expectation in Israel was that Iran would not go beyond hostile rhetoric. In the event, the Iranian response was both measured and spectacular.

On April 13, Iran directed over 300 weapons at Israel, which included 185 drones, 38 cruise missiles, and 10 ballistic missiles. Iran's allies in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen also directed drones and missiles at Israel. Israel claimed that 99 per cent of the drones and missiles were intercepted by its aircraft and prevented from causing damage on its territory by its air defence system. Israel was supported in these interceptions by the US, the UK, France, and even Jordan, which, apparently, intercepted drones in its "sovereign space". Israeli and US sources also said that Saudi Arabia and the UAE had participated in the interceptions in support of Israel, but these reports were firmly rejected as misinformation.

The unprecedented Iranian attacks placed Israel in a dilemma: fearing further escalation, US President Joe Biden advised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to "take the win". But Netanyahu, under considerable pressure from his extreme right-wing coalition partners, asserted that Israel would take action in its own interest. The extremist Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, called for a "crushing attack" on Iran.

Israel's response came five days later, on April 19: it directed just three drones at the central Iranian city of Isfahan which were swiftly intercepted by Iran and caused no damage. A few hours later, Israel also hit Syrian military facilities in the southern province of Deraa and caused some "material damage". Iran dismissed the attacks on its territory as an infiltration, without even mentioning that it was an Israeli attack.

Looking back, it would seem that the three aerial exchanges between the regional foes were chess moves on the regional stage, each move heavy with symbolism. As of now, this round appears to have ended in a draw, with both sides deciding not to escalate the situation further.

Run-up to the attack on the Iranian embassy

The Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy was instigated by a series of events in March. Netanyahu was under increasing domestic pressure as the Gaza war seemed to have reached a stalemate. Popular disgruntlement with government policies was reflected in anti-government demonstrations in different Israeli cities calling for the release of hostages and fresh elections. However, Netanyahu focussed on continuing the conflict, making no effort to negotiate a ceasefire and obtain the exchange of Israeli hostages with the release of Palestinian prisoners. A commentator, Nahum Barnea, wrote in the Israeli daily, Yedioth Ahronoth: "The muddling in hostage negotiations parallels the muddling in Gaza, the muddling in Lebanon and the muddling in Washington." The last reference was to the steady month-long estrangement between the US and Israel, with the former, Israel's staunchest ally, publicly expressing dissatisfaction with Netanyahu's approach to the war in Gaza.

On March 3, US Vice President Kamala Harris called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and criticised Israel for inadequate aid deliveries into the beleaguered enclave. These were the first public criticisms of Israel at this high level, and were the US administration's response to increasing domestic dissatisfaction with Biden's total support for Israel. Soon, there were reports in the US of a Biden-Netanyahu "rift", with some Democratic senators even calling for curtailing arms supplies to Israel if humanitarian aid to Gaza was not increased. The Biden administration also conveyed to Israel that its planned attack on Rafah, where nearly two million displaced people of Gaza had taken refuge, would amount to crossing a "red line".

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer launched a personal attack on Netanyahu, saying his continuation as prime minister was a "liability" for Israel. To crown this US-Israel divide, the UN Security Council on March 25 adopted a Security Council Resolution that called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The expected US veto never happened.

The Biden-Netanyahu divide was exacerbated on April 1 when Israeli soldiers killed seven aid workers with the global charity organisation World Central Kitchen. Some of those killed were from Australia, Britain, Canada, and Poland, all US allies. Biden declared himself "outraged and heartbroken".

Thus, Israel's attack on the Iranian embassy was a carefully calibrated escalation to divert US attention from Gaza to Iran. Netanyahu calculated that either Iran would not retaliate immediately, or, even if it did and confrontation escalated, the US would rush to Israel's assistance.

Netanyahu's gambit was remarkably successful: now, instead of castigating the Israeli Prime Minister for dragging West Asia towards a regional conflict, Biden announced on April 4 that his country's "commitment to Israel's security against threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad". To demonstrate this "iron-clad" support, the head of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), General Erik Kurilla, rushed to Israel to coordinate with Israel the response to Iran's expected retaliation. There was no reference now to the killing of aid workers or the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Iran's attack and Israel's counter-response

Iran's robust response to the attack on its embassy, called "Operation True Promise", seems to have surprised both Israel and the US. There are reports that Iran gave an advance warning to its neighbours and possibly even to the US about the impending attack. Most of the drones were slow-moving, taking several hours to reach Israel, and could be easily intercepted and destroyed, enabling Israel to claim a spectacular "victory" by downing 99 per cent of the attacking vehicles directed at its territory.

The important point to note is that some missiles did penetrate Israel's "Iron Dome" defence system and hit certain specific targets—the Nevatim and Ramon airbases from where Israeli aircraft had taken off to attack the Iranian embassy, and, possibly, Israel's intelligence base in the Golan Heights. An IRGC commander said that Iran could have launched a much larger attack, "but we restricted it to only target facilities that the [Israeli] regime had used to attack the [Iranian] consulate".

But the attacks still have considerable strategic significance. They were Iran's first direct attacks on Israel from its territory. Iran also demonstrated that its weapons could penetrate Israel's air defences and hit pre-planned targets. Iranian sources have confirmed that their most sophisticated weaponry—the hypersonic missiles that move at speeds up to Mach 8 and are very difficult to intercept—were not used in these attacks. Even then, some of its ballistic missiles reached high velocity and could penetrate what has been described as "the densest air defence in the world".

Thus, these attacks demonstrated the emergence of a new strategic scenario in West Asia—that Israel no longer enjoys strategic superiority in the regional landscape. Iran's President, Ebrahim Raisi, said that Iranian forces "turned a new page in the history of Iran's authority and taught a lesson to the Zionist enemy".

Netanyahu clearly understood the calamitous implications of his attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus. Despite Biden's advice to "take the win", he knew there was no win: Israel had to make a quick counter-move to demonstrate its capacity to access important Iranian targets. As Israeli commentator Ben Caspit said, Netanyahu needed "to restore Israel's deterrence capability". It achieved this with the attack on Isfahan on April 19.

Though only three drones were directed at the city, the action had considerable symbolic value: Isfahan has Iran's Natanz nuclear facility that is central to its weapons programme. It also has a prestigious nuclear technology research facility, and an airbase. Thus, Israel has made it clear that if Iran can hit targets in Israel, the latter also has the ability to attack Iran's sensitive assets. Although Ben-Gvir called the attack "feeble", the message has gone across to Iran's leaders that the two countries have the capacity for "mutual assured destruction", and also of West Asia itself.

What next?

Now that the threat of an Israel-Iran confrontation has receded, the attention has shifted back to the Gaza war. This means focussing on the terms of a truce and the release of hostages and prisoners. It is not yet clear whether this will be a short six-week truce or a longer ceasefire that will open up space to address festering political issues in Israel.

Netanyahu is unlikely to favour such a ceasefire since his unpopularity would lead to his overthrow, the revival of criminal cases against him, and his possible incarceration. Following Netanyahu's ouster, a new government would emerge that would try to heal the traumatised nation, but it is unlikely to offer anything to the Palestinians. In fact, the US is likely to use all its clout to push for Saudi-Israeli normalisation of ties by highlighting the threat from Iran, and to rebuild the coalition against Iran made up of the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

This would be an initiative that is well past its use-by date. Since 2020, at least, Saudi Arabia has shrugged off its security affiliation with the US and, by asserting strategic autonomy, built substantial ties with Iran as well as with Russia and China. This was quite obvious during the recent Israel-Iran stand-off when US attempts to shape a coalition with Arab states failed ignominiously.

Iran now looks more formidable than it did before the Gaza war. The Islamic Republic and its allies have a substantial arsenal of drones and missiles of diverse capabilities which, taken together, can wreak havoc across West Asia. The distinguished commentator, Robin Wright, has pointed out that "Iran's nuclear advances since 2019 have also narrowed the time until it could make a bomb if it should make the political decision to move forward on the world's deadliest weapon". Thus, the prospect of confrontations in the region evolving into an encounter involving nuclear weapons cannot be ruled out.

The exchange of drone and missile attacks between Israel and Iran over three weeks in April has taken West Asia to new levels of insecurity, while changing the regional strategic scenario to Israel's disadvantage.

The recent confrontations began on April 1 when Israeli aircraft attacked the building housing the Consular section of the Iranian embassy in Damascus and killed the Iranian Al Quds Force commander in Syria and Lebanon, General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, along with another general and five other officials, all of them senior members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

This was the most serious attack on the IRGC since the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani by American missiles in January 2020. Zahedi was a high-profile Iranian military leader, having earlier held senior positions in the country's armed forces and intelligence. Zahedi's killing followed the Israeli assassination in Damascus of IRGC General Syed Raza Mousavi last December, and that of Hamas official Saleh al-Arouri in Beirut in January.

Regional security at stake

The outlook for regional security remains uncertain. As noted above, there is now a degree of strategic parity between Israel and Iran, but neither the US nor Israel has a long-term strategy to address the challenges posed by Iran and its regional partners, beyond armed confrontation and periodic pinpricks that could flare up into larger military encounters.

Nor does Israel have any constructive response to the challenges posed by Palestinian aspirations, beyond abuse, incarceration, and periodic mass-murder. But it is possible that now Israel wields a much weaker hand: appalled by the carnage in Gaza, large sections of world opinion, including in the US, have become critical of Israel, and talk of a "two-state solution" has become widespread in several Western capitals, Biden included.

Highlights:

The recent Israel-Iran stand-off has undermined Israel's strategic superiority in the regional landscape

It shows that the Islamic Republic and its allies have a substantial arsenal of drones and missiles of diverse capabilities which, taken together, can wreak havoc across West Asia

The encounter has also exposed Israel's crucial dependence on the US for its security

A day after the Iranian attack on Israel, the editorial board of The New York Times, traditionally the most pro-Israel media platform in the US, wrote that the "bond of trust" between Israeli and American leaders had been broken by "Mr Netanyahu and the hard-liners in his government," and the US could not continue to supply arms to Israel until this bond was restored. It spoke of Netanyahu's "cynical double games" and his turning "defiance of America's leadership into a political tool".

In this background, it is important to note that the Gaza war and the recent Israel-Iran military encounter have exposed Israel's crucial dependence on the US for its security—through military supplies worth billions of dollars. Ken Klippenstein and Daniel Boguslaw have quoted American military sources in The Intercept as saying that "US and allied aircraft shot down the majority of [Iranian] drones and missiles".

The new military and political realities ushered in by the Gaza war and the Israel-Iran military encounter should encourage new diplomatic approaches too, to address the festering issues in West Asia: one, the push for a two-state solution to meet Palestinian aspirations, and, two, renewed US-Iran dialogue on the nuclear agreement and wider regional security challenges.

Without these initiatives, the world could quite easily sleepwalk into a grave regional or even global conflict.

Talmiz Ahmad is a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE, holds the Ram Sathe Chair for International Studies, Symbiosis International University, Pune. His latest book, West Asia at War: Repression, Resistance and Great Power Games, was published by HarperCollins in April 2022.

This article was first published in Frontline and republished in The Daily Star with permission.​

 

[Saif]

Israel’s diversionary attack on Iran has set off a new security crisis in West Asia

Netanyahu is unlikely to favour such a ceasefire since his unpopularity would lead to his overthrow, the revival of criminal cases against him, and his possible incarceration.

www.thedailystar.net

Israel's diversionary attack on Iran has set off a new security crisis in West Asia
The standoff has shattered Israel's strategic superiority, exposed its dependence on the US, and heightened the risk of a nuclear conflict.

View attachment 5765
Demonstrators wave Iran's flag and Palestinian flags as they gather in front of the British Embassy in Tehran on April 14, 2023. PHOTO: AFP

The exchange of drone and missile attacks between Israel and Iran over three weeks in April has taken West Asia to new levels of insecurity, while changing the regional strategic scenario to Israel's disadvantage.

The recent confrontations began on April 1 when Israeli aircraft attacked the building housing the Consular section of the Iranian embassy in Damascus and killed the Iranian Al Quds Force commander in Syria and Lebanon, General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, along with another general and five other officials, all of them senior members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

This was the most serious attack on the IRGC since the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani by American missiles in January 2020. Zahedi was a high-profile Iranian military leader, having earlier held senior positions in the country's armed forces and intelligence. Zahedi's killing followed the Israeli assassination in Damascus of IRGC General Syed Raza Mousavi last December, and that of Hamas official Saleh al-Arouri in Beirut in January.

The Israel-Iran military exchanges

Israel claimed that the embassy premises were a legitimate target since they were being used to plan attacks on Israeli and US assets. Israeli spokespersons ignored the fact that almost all embassies globally, including the US and Israeli embassies, have military and intelligence officials who, in their respective embassies, plan attacks on their countries' enemies in the host or neighbouring countries. However, most Western countries failed to condemn the attack.

Since Iran in the past has generally avoided hitting Israeli targets directly after attacks on its assets in Iran and in the neighbourhood, the expectation in Israel was that Iran would not go beyond hostile rhetoric. In the event, the Iranian response was both measured and spectacular.

On April 13, Iran directed over 300 weapons at Israel, which included 185 drones, 38 cruise missiles, and 10 ballistic missiles. Iran's allies in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen also directed drones and missiles at Israel. Israel claimed that 99 per cent of the drones and missiles were intercepted by its aircraft and prevented from causing damage on its territory by its air defence system. Israel was supported in these interceptions by the US, the UK, France, and even Jordan, which, apparently, intercepted drones in its "sovereign space". Israeli and US sources also said that Saudi Arabia and the UAE had participated in the interceptions in support of Israel, but these reports were firmly rejected as misinformation.

The unprecedented Iranian attacks placed Israel in a dilemma: fearing further escalation, US President Joe Biden advised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to "take the win". But Netanyahu, under considerable pressure from his extreme right-wing coalition partners, asserted that Israel would take action in its own interest. The extremist Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, called for a "crushing attack" on Iran.

Israel's response came five days later, on April 19: it directed just three drones at the central Iranian city of Isfahan which were swiftly intercepted by Iran and caused no damage. A few hours later, Israel also hit Syrian military facilities in the southern province of Deraa and caused some "material damage". Iran dismissed the attacks on its territory as an infiltration, without even mentioning that it was an Israeli attack.

Looking back, it would seem that the three aerial exchanges between the regional foes were chess moves on the regional stage, each move heavy with symbolism. As of now, this round appears to have ended in a draw, with both sides deciding not to escalate the situation further.

Run-up to the attack on the Iranian embassy

The Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy was instigated by a series of events in March. Netanyahu was under increasing domestic pressure as the Gaza war seemed to have reached a stalemate. Popular disgruntlement with government policies was reflected in anti-government demonstrations in different Israeli cities calling for the release of hostages and fresh elections. However, Netanyahu focussed on continuing the conflict, making no effort to negotiate a ceasefire and obtain the exchange of Israeli hostages with the release of Palestinian prisoners. A commentator, Nahum Barnea, wrote in the Israeli daily, Yedioth Ahronoth: "The muddling in hostage negotiations parallels the muddling in Gaza, the muddling in Lebanon and the muddling in Washington." The last reference was to the steady month-long estrangement between the US and Israel, with the former, Israel's staunchest ally, publicly expressing dissatisfaction with Netanyahu's approach to the war in Gaza.

On March 3, US Vice President Kamala Harris called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and criticised Israel for inadequate aid deliveries into the beleaguered enclave. These were the first public criticisms of Israel at this high level, and were the US administration's response to increasing domestic dissatisfaction with Biden's total support for Israel. Soon, there were reports in the US of a Biden-Netanyahu "rift", with some Democratic senators even calling for curtailing arms supplies to Israel if humanitarian aid to Gaza was not increased. The Biden administration also conveyed to Israel that its planned attack on Rafah, where nearly two million displaced people of Gaza had taken refuge, would amount to crossing a "red line".

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer launched a personal attack on Netanyahu, saying his continuation as prime minister was a "liability" for Israel. To crown this US-Israel divide, the UN Security Council on March 25 adopted a Security Council Resolution that called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The expected US veto never happened.

The Biden-Netanyahu divide was exacerbated on April 1 when Israeli soldiers killed seven aid workers with the global charity organisation World Central Kitchen. Some of those killed were from Australia, Britain, Canada, and Poland, all US allies. Biden declared himself "outraged and heartbroken".

Thus, Israel's attack on the Iranian embassy was a carefully calibrated escalation to divert US attention from Gaza to Iran. Netanyahu calculated that either Iran would not retaliate immediately, or, even if it did and confrontation escalated, the US would rush to Israel's assistance.

Netanyahu's gambit was remarkably successful: now, instead of castigating the Israeli Prime Minister for dragging West Asia towards a regional conflict, Biden announced on April 4 that his country's "commitment to Israel's security against threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad". To demonstrate this "iron-clad" support, the head of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), General Erik Kurilla, rushed to Israel to coordinate with Israel the response to Iran's expected retaliation. There was no reference now to the killing of aid workers or the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Iran's attack and Israel's counter-response

Iran's robust response to the attack on its embassy, called "Operation True Promise", seems to have surprised both Israel and the US. There are reports that Iran gave an advance warning to its neighbours and possibly even to the US about the impending attack. Most of the drones were slow-moving, taking several hours to reach Israel, and could be easily intercepted and destroyed, enabling Israel to claim a spectacular "victory" by downing 99 per cent of the attacking vehicles directed at its territory.

The important point to note is that some missiles did penetrate Israel's "Iron Dome" defence system and hit certain specific targets—the Nevatim and Ramon airbases from where Israeli aircraft had taken off to attack the Iranian embassy, and, possibly, Israel's intelligence base in the Golan Heights. An IRGC commander said that Iran could have launched a much larger attack, "but we restricted it to only target facilities that the [Israeli] regime had used to attack the [Iranian] consulate".

But the attacks still have considerable strategic significance. They were Iran's first direct attacks on Israel from its territory. Iran also demonstrated that its weapons could penetrate Israel's air defences and hit pre-planned targets. Iranian sources have confirmed that their most sophisticated weaponry—the hypersonic missiles that move at speeds up to Mach 8 and are very difficult to intercept—were not used in these attacks. Even then, some of its ballistic missiles reached high velocity and could penetrate what has been described as "the densest air defence in the world".

Thus, these attacks demonstrated the emergence of a new strategic scenario in West Asia—that Israel no longer enjoys strategic superiority in the regional landscape. Iran's President, Ebrahim Raisi, said that Iranian forces "turned a new page in the history of Iran's authority and taught a lesson to the Zionist enemy".

Netanyahu clearly understood the calamitous implications of his attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus. Despite Biden's advice to "take the win", he knew there was no win: Israel had to make a quick counter-move to demonstrate its capacity to access important Iranian targets. As Israeli commentator Ben Caspit said, Netanyahu needed "to restore Israel's deterrence capability". It achieved this with the attack on Isfahan on April 19.

Though only three drones were directed at the city, the action had considerable symbolic value: Isfahan has Iran's Natanz nuclear facility that is central to its weapons programme. It also has a prestigious nuclear technology research facility, and an airbase. Thus, Israel has made it clear that if Iran can hit targets in Israel, the latter also has the ability to attack Iran's sensitive assets. Although Ben-Gvir called the attack "feeble", the message has gone across to Iran's leaders that the two countries have the capacity for "mutual assured destruction", and also of West Asia itself.

What next?

Now that the threat of an Israel-Iran confrontation has receded, the attention has shifted back to the Gaza war. This means focussing on the terms of a truce and the release of hostages and prisoners. It is not yet clear whether this will be a short six-week truce or a longer ceasefire that will open up space to address festering political issues in Israel.

Netanyahu is unlikely to favour such a ceasefire since his unpopularity would lead to his overthrow, the revival of criminal cases against him, and his possible incarceration. Following Netanyahu's ouster, a new government would emerge that would try to heal the traumatised nation, but it is unlikely to offer anything to the Palestinians. In fact, the US is likely to use all its clout to push for Saudi-Israeli normalisation of ties by highlighting the threat from Iran, and to rebuild the coalition against Iran made up of the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

This would be an initiative that is well past its use-by date. Since 2020, at least, Saudi Arabia has shrugged off its security affiliation with the US and, by asserting strategic autonomy, built substantial ties with Iran as well as with Russia and China. This was quite obvious during the recent Israel-Iran stand-off when US attempts to shape a coalition with Arab states failed ignominiously.

Iran now looks more formidable than it did before the Gaza war. The Islamic Republic and its allies have a substantial arsenal of drones and missiles of diverse capabilities which, taken together, can wreak havoc across West Asia. The distinguished commentator, Robin Wright, has pointed out that "Iran's nuclear advances since 2019 have also narrowed the time until it could make a bomb if it should make the political decision to move forward on the world's deadliest weapon". Thus, the prospect of confrontations in the region evolving into an encounter involving nuclear weapons cannot be ruled out.

The exchange of drone and missile attacks between Israel and Iran over three weeks in April has taken West Asia to new levels of insecurity, while changing the regional strategic scenario to Israel's disadvantage.

The recent confrontations began on April 1 when Israeli aircraft attacked the building housing the Consular section of the Iranian embassy in Damascus and killed the Iranian Al Quds Force commander in Syria and Lebanon, General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, along with another general and five other officials, all of them senior members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

This was the most serious attack on the IRGC since the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani by American missiles in January 2020. Zahedi was a high-profile Iranian military leader, having earlier held senior positions in the country's armed forces and intelligence. Zahedi's killing followed the Israeli assassination in Damascus of IRGC General Syed Raza Mousavi last December, and that of Hamas official Saleh al-Arouri in Beirut in January.

Regional security at stake

The outlook for regional security remains uncertain. As noted above, there is now a degree of strategic parity between Israel and Iran, but neither the US nor Israel has a long-term strategy to address the challenges posed by Iran and its regional partners, beyond armed confrontation and periodic pinpricks that could flare up into larger military encounters.

Nor does Israel have any constructive response to the challenges posed by Palestinian aspirations, beyond abuse, incarceration, and periodic mass-murder. But it is possible that now Israel wields a much weaker hand: appalled by the carnage in Gaza, large sections of world opinion, including in the US, have become critical of Israel, and talk of a "two-state solution" has become widespread in several Western capitals, Biden included.

Highlights:

The recent Israel-Iran stand-off has undermined Israel's strategic superiority in the regional landscape

It shows that the Islamic Republic and its allies have a substantial arsenal of drones and missiles of diverse capabilities which, taken together, can wreak havoc across West Asia

The encounter has also exposed Israel's crucial dependence on the US for its security

A day after the Iranian attack on Israel, the editorial board of The New York Times, traditionally the most pro-Israel media platform in the US, wrote that the "bond of trust" between Israeli and American leaders had been broken by "Mr Netanyahu and the hard-liners in his government," and the US could not continue to supply arms to Israel until this bond was restored. It spoke of Netanyahu's "cynical double games" and his turning "defiance of America's leadership into a political tool".

In this background, it is important to note that the Gaza war and the recent Israel-Iran military encounter have exposed Israel's crucial dependence on the US for its security—through military supplies worth billions of dollars. Ken Klippenstein and Daniel Boguslaw have quoted American military sources in The Intercept as saying that "US and allied aircraft shot down the majority of [Iranian] drones and missiles".

The new military and political realities ushered in by the Gaza war and the Israel-Iran military encounter should encourage new diplomatic approaches too, to address the festering issues in West Asia: one, the push for a two-state solution to meet Palestinian aspirations, and, two, renewed US-Iran dialogue on the nuclear agreement and wider regional security challenges.

Without these initiatives, the world could quite easily sleepwalk into a grave regional or even global conflict.

Talmiz Ahmad is a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE, holds the Ram Sathe Chair for International Studies, Symbiosis International University, Pune. His latest book, West Asia at War: Repression, Resistance and Great Power Games, was published by HarperCollins in April 2022.

This article was first published in Frontline and republished in The Daily Star with permission.​