With last weekend's attack, Tehran made a strategic shift in the region.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, says Israeli attacks on Iranian soil will not go unanswered.
Iran is ready to close the Strait of Hormuz waterway.
A group of democratic activists strongly opposes any kind of war.
This article is available for the first time in German - it was first published by
Foreign Policy
magazine on April 18, 2024 .
Tehran – On April 14, the international community was shocked by Iran's bold and direct military attack on Israel. The attack with around 300 missiles - including 170 drones, more than 30 cruise missiles and more than 120 ballistic missiles - challenged one of the world's most advanced missile defense systems. Although most were intercepted or failed to reach their target, US officials confirmed that at least nine rockets hit two Israeli air bases.
To understand the full scope of this attack, one must consider the internal Iranian context. Government officials, analysts and political figures in Iran see the attack as a sign of a strategic shift intended to alter regional dynamics. They say the attacks were not aimed at provoking all-out war but at building strategic deterrence.
This strategic recalibration follows a long period in which Israel's actions against Tehran's interests remained largely unchallenged. These actions included attacks on Iranian military personnel, scientists, and critical infrastructure, carried out with apparent impunity.
However, the situation changed after a speech by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during Eid al-Fitr on April 10. This speech came after an Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, on April 1, which killed 16 people, including two senior officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). In his public remarks, Khamenei stated: “Consulates and embassy facilities in each country are considered the soil of the country to which the embassy belongs; if our consulate is attacked, it is as if our soil had been attacked; this is a worldwide convention. The nefarious regime has made a mistake in this matter; it must be punished, and it will be punished.”
Attacks on Iranian soil trigger counterattacks against Israel
Iran's subsequent military response was measured, with advance warnings issued to various countries in the region to minimize casualties and provide Israel with de-escalation opportunities. Iranian officials quickly linked this new strategic stance to an unmistakable message: Any future attacks on Iranian soil or against Iranian nationals abroad will trigger direct counterattacks on Israeli territory. Iran has thus defined its threshold and is trying to create a new strategic reality.
Commenting on these events, conservative Iranian analyst Gholamreza Bani Asadi said: “The era of hit-and-run is over. A single blow against us will bring a tenfold response." This assessment reflects the general Iranian stance following the attack.
Yousef Mashfeq, another Iranian analyst, contributed to this narrative by stating: “Iran has shown that with its minimal capabilities and by using the most basic drones and missiles, it can overwhelm Israel and bypass its defenses, all in one "To the extent that even aid from the United States and other countries could not counteract the attacks." His analysis is consistent with another opinion prevailing in the Islamic Republic, according to which Iran deliberately refrained from using its most modern weapons in its military operation.
Iran Security Council: “Attack on Israel is in line with UN Charter”
Iran's Supreme National Security Council, the main foreign policy decision-making body, said the attack on Israel was consistent with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The Council stressed that the operation was a limited response, targeting only military facilities. “Iran has taken the minimum necessary punitive measures against the aggressive Zionist regime to protect its national interests and national security,” he said. “Iran is currently not planning any further military action.”
In the wake of the attack, Iran's rhetoric appears to challenge popular perceptions of Israel's dominance in deterrence. Iranian officials have indicated that if hostilities escalate, they may consider U.S. assets and interests in the region as potential targets for retaliation.
Iran would be ready to close important waterway
In addition, the Iranian military leadership has expressed its willingness to impede maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which is crucial for international trade. The IRGC naval commander's recent statement threatening a blockade of the strait underscores this stance. The timing of Iran's hijacking of a cargo ship said to belong to an Israeli tycoon shortly before the attack on Israel appears to be a deliberate display of its capabilities. This action reflects the Houthis' strategy in the Red Sea and suggests that Iran is prepared to impede maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf if a full-scale conflict breaks out, which could have serious consequences for the global economy.
The Islamic Republic's political spectrum is broadly united in support of the attacks, with representatives from both conservative, moderate and reformist factions endorsing the action. Former President Hassan Rouhani, a moderate politician, expressed hope that Israel "learns its lesson" and stops its aggressive behavior to avoid a "proportionate" Iranian response. Reform-minded former President Mohammad Khatami echoed this sentiment, praising Iran's response as "calculated, courageous, logical and lawful."
Other reform politicians expressed hope that the attacks could provide an opportunity for diplomatic de-escalation in the region. Mohammad Hossein Khoshvaght, editor of the reformist news magazine Fararu, noted: "Even in war, all sides try not to burn all bridges behind them and always keep open the possibility of sitting at the negotiating table and solving the problem through dialogue." Masoud Pezeshkian, a reform-minded parliamentarian, also suggested that “if Iran and America agree to prevent the start of a new war, we can expand this agreement to other areas.”
Democratic activists speak out clearly against war
Meanwhile, another section of Iranian civil society, including democracy advocates and workers' organizations, have collectively spoken out against war following the attack on Israel. A statement signed by more than 350 civil society figures, including prominent women's rights activists and student leaders, said: “We, the civil activists, believe that the discourse on the pursuit of democracy is intertwined with the no to war and that this discourse has nothing to do with warmongering currents, be it in the position of the Islamic Republic or under the guise of the opposition.”
At the same time, four independent unions - the Free Union of Iranian Workers, the Coordination Council of Iranian Teachers' Associations, the Group of United Pensioners and the Council of Pensioners of Iran - issued statements about the terrible consequences of the war for Iranians. Nasrin Sotoudeh, a well-known dissident lawyer, also publicly expressed her opposition to war, declaring: “We do not want war, no matter what name.
Iranian government steps up suppression of dissent
But since the attack on Israel, the Iranian government has stepped up its suppression of dissent, particularly criticism of the military operation. The judiciary has summoned various political figures, media figures and publications for their criticism of Iran's actions. Prominent individuals, including Hossein Dehbashi, a documentary filmmaker and journalist, and Abbas Abdi, a journalist and activist, are charged with “disturbing the intellectual security of the public.”
Similarly, the IRGC's intelligence service has pledged to take strict action against any online support for Israel and urged the public to report such incidents to its cyber division.
Ultimately, the Iranian attack on Israeli soil marks a crucial turning point in the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. Iran's strategic demonstration of military capabilities, while restrained, is a stark reminder of its growing deterrence capability. And the rhetoric from Tehran after the attack is not just bluster. It amounts to a serious and newfound declaration of intent to retaliate with greater force for any future Israeli aggression.
We are currently testing machine translations. This article was automatically translated from English into German.
This article was first published in English in the magazine “ForeignPolicy.com” on April 18, 2024 - as part of a cooperation, it is now also available in translation to readers of the IPPEN.MEDIA portals.