The Iranian president warns Israel against a military strike. The threat is clear. What is behind the wording?
Tehran – Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi finds clear words: The Iranian response to a military strike by Israel knows “no limits”. But the Iranian leadership is also divided. Some emphasize a de-escalation of the situation, others insist on a counterattack. Which scenarios are realistic and which weapons could be used - is there a threat of an escalation of the spiral of violence in the war in Israel?
The threatening gestures from Iran have been steadily increasing since Tehran's attack on the Israeli state. Most recently, Abolfazl Amouei, spokesman for the National Security Committee in Tehran's parliament, spoke of a "weapon that we have never used before."
Iran threatens Israel: a counterstrike will have “painful” consequences
What exactly he means by this is a mystery. This threat is intended to have two goals: on the one hand, it is intended to deter Israel from launching a counterattack, and on the other hand, it is intended to signal Iranian strength. The Iranian president further warned Israel that even the “smallest attack” would result in a “severe, extensive and painful” response.
However, there is a catch for Iranian politicians: Israel knows better about Iran's weapons arsenal than many of Tehran's long-time politicians, as the
Tagesspiegel
reports. Although a nuclear weapon cannot be ruled out, this option appears extremely unlikely. Because: The Iranian government is interested in self-preservation despite the attack on Israel.
“The Islamic Republic is not a suicidal regime,” as Ali Fatholah-Nejad, founding director of the Berlin Institute CMEG, tells the
Tagesspiegel
. And the use of nuclear weapons would mean US intervention in the conflict - which would probably also be the end of the Iranian state.
A realistic option would be another missile attack by Iran on Israel
Former British army colonel Hamish de-Bretton Gordon told the British
Sun that
such statements were “bragging.” In his opinion, Amouei implies the use of nuclear or biological weapons with such a statement, but he also considers the actual use to be unrealistic.
A realistic option, however, would be another rocket attack on the Israeli state - this time with heavier fire. During the major attack on Saturday (April 13), Tehran was already able to test the weak points of Israel's air defenses. Another such attack could potentially hit weak points in Tel Aviv's defenses. Russia used a similar tactic in the Ukraine war.
An April 14 report from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) said: "The attack likely helped Iran reveal possible strengths and weaknesses of Israel's air defense." Thus, a counterattack by the Iranian regime should - despite the successful one Israel's first defense – should not be underestimated.
(SiSchr)