U.S. Policy makers arre worried at Teheran ties with Moscow and Beijing
By Girish Linganna
For 20 years, Iran supported various militias in the Middle East as it opposed Israel from a distance. However, its recent direct attack on Israel represents a major change in strategy and a significant risk. Iran is aware that its military is not as strong as Israel's, especially given the U.S.'s support for Israel. Since the Islamic revolution in 1979, Iran has had limited support from other countries for any direct conflict with a U.S. ally.
Iran recently launched a significant drone and missile attack on Israel, openly taking responsibility and threatening further action if Israel responds. This attack follows years of Iran strengthening its relationships with U.S. competitors like Russia and China, improving ties with neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia, and boosting its economy through unauthorized oil sales. This action indicates that Iran is shifting away from collaborating with Western nations and is now more openly opposing the U.S. and its allies.
Now, Iran and Israel are close to a cycle of increasing violence that is very dangerous for both. Israeli leaders have stated that they will respond when and where they decide, and U.S. officials believe this will happen soon.
A rising group of Iranian hard-liners is pushing for stronger measures against Israel after it heavily damaged Tehran's militia networks. This includes a recent attack on a diplomatic site (Iran embassy) in Damascus, the capital city of Syria, that killed top military officials. For many of these hard-liners, such an attack requires a major change in how they respond.
“Maj. Gen. Hossein Salami, the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which carried out the attacks on April 13, 2024, announced a change in strategy,” he said on state TV. “Moving forward, if Israel targets our interests, assets, leaders, or citizens anywhere, we will respond directly from Iran,” he clarified on the following day, April 14, 2024.
This change is very risky for Tehran, giving Israel a chance to shift focus from the widely criticized war in Gaza. It also challenges Iran's military strength, which might not be ready for this test. Talking to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Jon Alterman, a former State Department official and now senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said, “The Iranians aren't trying to be popular. They are trying to gain power.”
“The Iranians believe they are in a desperate struggle with the United States and its allies, no matter their actions. They feel they have no option but to take risks. For them, simply surviving is considered a win,” he explained.
The attack follows Iran's actions of providing drones to Russia, which have been deployed against Ukraine, and assisting in constructing a drone factory in Russia. These actions have worried U.S. officials and contributed to giving Moscow an advantage in the Ukrainian conflict.
Since the U.S. withdrew from its agreement with Tehran in 2018, Iran has expanded its nuclear program, raising fears that it might be nearing the capability to build a nuclear weapon, although Iran denies this. U.S. officials, however, do not believe that Iran is actively working on creating a nuclear weapon right now.
As of February, Iranian officials have stated they would only launch a major attack on Israel under two conditions: if Israel directly targets Iran's key facilities like nuclear and petrochemical sites, or if there's a ground attack against Hezbollah in Lebanon, a crucial ally and one of Israel's main adversaries.
Advisors to the Revolutionary Guard and the Syrian government noted that Iran's response to Israel's attack on a building used for Iranian consular activities was not necessarily going to be military retaliation. They pointed out that Iran had the option to not consider the building as its own territory and to overlook the deaths of its commanders, just as it had ignored previous attacks on its interests in Syria for many years.
Israel has not claimed responsibility for the attack in Damascus, and Israeli officials have stated that intelligence indicates the targeted building was not a genuine diplomatic site but rather a facility used for Iranian military activities.
During a meeting with intelligence and Guard leaders on April 15, 2024, Ali Akbar Ahmadian, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told the Wall Street Journal that Iran's decision was influenced by increasing dissatisfaction among the Houthis and other resistance groups, who felt Iran was not taking any action, said the adviser.
Dalia Dassa Kaye, a senior fellow at UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations, explained WSJ, that the situation in Gaza heightened the need for Iran to demonstrate its leadership within the Axis opposing Israel. She noted that there was a perception of Israel controlling the situation, prompting a need for Iran to shift the dynamics.
While the Iranian attack resulted in minimal damage and few injuries, it marked a significant shift from Iran's usual strategy. Typically, Iran has used militant groups to exert pressure on foes like Israel from a distance.
According to The Wall Street Journal, it is widely believed that Israel has been active in this covert conflict, having assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists, executed cyberattacks against Tehran, and conducted over 400 airstrikes on targets linked to Iran in Syria and other parts of the region.
Israel stepped up its attacks on Iranian positions following the October 7 attack by Hamas, amid the ongoing Gaza war. These suspected Israeli operations have resulted in the deaths of at least 18 Revolutionary Guard members in recent months. This includes an April 1 strike in Damascus that killed a high-ranking Iranian general, leading to Iran's subsequent retaliation.
Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House in London, noted, “This represents a significant shift in how conflicts are managed. It's clearly a deliberate move to set firm boundaries in their conflict with Israel.”
Iran alerted Oman and Switzerland, both common mediators between Iran and the West, about the impending attack, giving Israel and its allies time to brace for impact, which probably reduced the damage caused by the strike
Despite this, military analysts noted that the extensive use of over 300 missiles and drones indicated a serious intent to cause damage in Israel. A coordinated defense effort involving the U.S. and Arab nations was required to intercept most of these projectiles.
Fabian Hinz, a specialist in Iranian missiles and drones at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, questioned the intent behind Iran's extensive use of weaponry, asking, “If the strike was merely symbolic, why deploy so many systems? What would a full-scale strike involve? Launching a thousand missiles at once isn't feasible.”
The ongoing question is whether Hezbollah will escalate its involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran. Although this Lebanese group has been actively engaging with Israeli forces since the war in Gaza started, it has yet to use its more advanced precision-guided missiles.
Chuck Freilich, a former deputy national security adviser in Israel, told the Wall Street Journal, “The covert conflict is set to persist. The real question now is whether it will escalate into open warfare.”
