A fire broke out between Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv and the city of Modiin following the Iranian missile attack on Oct. 1, 2024. (Credit: Ahmad Gharabli/AFP)
In 45 years of existence, the Islamic Republic had never taken such a risk. A proponent of asymmetric warfare, it conducted a direct attack on Israel on Tuesday for the second time in six months. If the objective is essentially the same — to restore its credibility without triggering a regional war — the context is quite different. So much so that not only will a regional war this time be much more difficult to avoid, but the survival of the Iranian regime, or at least its nuclear program, may now become the main issue of the conflict. L’Orient-Le Jour provides an overview.
The facts:
• On Tuesday evening, a shooting described as "terrorist" by Israeli authorities killed at least six people in Jaffa, near Tel Aviv.
• Right after, Iran launched a massive attack on Israel, with warning sirens sounding across almost the entire territory to call residents to shelter. Nearly 200 missiles were fired from the Islamic Republic, on the orders of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
• The attacks were claimed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a response to assassinations attributed to Israel of Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31, Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, and IRGC commander Abbas Nilforoushan, both killed in massive Israeli strikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sept. 27.
• Although many projectiles were intercepted, Israeli authorities reported several projectile impacts and injuries, with the final toll still unclear at the time of publication.
• The projectile launch had been preannounced by the United States, having warned their Israeli allies. According to a senior Iranian official cited by Reuters, the United States was alerted through diplomatic channels "shortly before the attacks," while Tehran had previously alerted its Russian ally.
• While the missiles reached Israel much faster than last April, when the journey took several hours, the damage seems limited, as the United States and Jordan helped intercept projectiles.
• The Israeli military stated Tuesday evening that it would respond “at the place and time” it decides. Echoing Israeli media, analyst Charles Lister posted on X that the response would take place that same evening, "across the Middle East."
The context:
• The attacks come after nearly two weeks of successive military and security operations in Lebanon, which have brought Hezbollah to its knees.
• Nasrallah was assassinated, the party's high command decapitated, and much of its operational capabilities seem to have been affected.
• Within the "Axis of Resistance," a feeling of being abandoned by Iran at the most critical moment was increasingly spreading in recent days.
• Recent Iranian statements implied that it would not directly involve itself in retaliation, as it has been trying for nearly a year to avoid being drawn into a regional war.
• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of his willingness to change the face of the region after Nasrallah's assassination, an explicit reference to breaking the Iranian axis.
• To bolster its deterrent power against Iran's affiliates, Israel showed readiness to fight on all fronts simultaneously — in Gaza and Lebanon, but also in Syria and Yemen, where it recently conducted closely-timed strikes.
• Since Oct. 7, 2023, Israel has increased targeted assassinations against pro-Iranian officials, even targeting Tehran's consular annex in Damascus on April 1, killing Haniyeh in Tehran itself. The promised response to the Palestinian leader's assassination was still awaited.
• In April, Tehran orchestrated a response to the Damascus strike by sending over 300 drones and missiles to Israeli territory. This attack was almost entirely intercepted with the help of the Israeli state's allies and partners, as the Islamic Republic had communicated its plans in advance.
• The Islamic Republic has also shown openness to resuming dialogue with Westerners after reformist Massoud Pezeshkian was elected president, campaigning on his willingness to negotiate sanction relief in exchange for concessions on Iran's nuclear program.
The stakes:
• For Iran, it is primarily about saving face and the little credibility it has left on the regional stage.
• The regime's hardline wing, some Iran-affiliated groups, and part of their base had harbored resentment over the Islamic Republic's perceived apathy in the face of Israel's blows since Oct. 7.
• While the Islamic Republic initially seemed inclined to absorb the blow dealt to Hezbollah, many observers pointed to Israel crossing one red line after another, questioning the lack of a strong response from Iran, which could encourage Israel to strike it directly.
• The fact that Hezbollah did not participate in the response, with no projectile being fired during the northern border attack, indicates that the Iranian patron intends, for now, to leave Lebanon out of this.
• Three key questions arise at this time: What will be Israel's response, given that Netanyahu might seize this opportunity to realize his dream of striking Iran's nuclear facilities? Will Washington participate in the retaliation, placing the Iranian regime in an extremely delicate position against a much stronger adversary? Does Hezbollah still have the capacity to play its role as Iran's deterrent against Israel?
• Iran has chosen escalation to restore its credibility and potentially initiate negotiations from a less humiliating posture. But if Israel responds with even stronger escalation, what is Iran's plan? Is it betting, assuming Hezbollah is still capable, of a regional conflagration — a scenario feared for months by the Biden administration — to push Israel into negotiating? But how to ensure this will not endanger the regime's survival?
For the first time since its inception, Iran is risking sacrificing its king. And burning the whole chessboard if necessary.
