- Iran’s new willingness to strike deep within Israeli territory in retaliation for strikes on its personnel operating in Syria is the only change in the status quo ante for the Israeli-Iranian crisis in the Middle East. Iran’s counterattack, telegraphed well ahead of its execution, provided Israel with sufficient time to prepare in advance to minimize its damage. The strike resulted in little more than a few craters scattered around one of Israel’s southernmost bases. As the Times notes, only one of Iran’s 110 ballistic missiles caused “minor damage to one air base.”
- In fact, the New York Times, for instance, described the damage as ‘minimal.’ In an article published on April 18th, 2024 the Times wrote: “On Saturday, Iran launched a retaliatory barrage of more than 300 drones and missiles at Israel, an unexpectedly large-scale response, if one that did minimal damage.”
- There is reason to suspect that the Israels were preparing in advance for an Iranian counterattack well before it executed its strike on Iran’s ‘consulate’ in Syria. The evidence for its advanced preparations is the announcement that ‘hackers,’ who appeared to be a white hat security team,’ successfully hacked the Iron Dome systems in the weeks leading up to the attack. Although an announcement of the successful hack appeared to circulate throughout social media in the weeks leading up to Israel’s April 1st attack, the announcement contained few, if any, details beyond a declared breech.
- It is uncommon for anything other than a ‘white hat’ security team to be able to successfully accomplish an operation like the one the ‘hackers’ accomplished in Israel due to the high degree of security in which Israel’s Internet is shrouded.
- It appears as though no evidence exists of its previous incident, successful or otherwise, against the Iron Dome system. The absence of a prior attack suggests that the system may not have been vulnerable or, at least according to its history, may not have suffered from an exploitation of its vulnerabilities. It is common for ‘white hat’ security teams to perform so-called ‘penetration’ testing on secure systems like the ones the Israelis built for the Iron Dome, one of the most hardened anti-air defense systems in the world.
- Moreover, America’s own state security apparatus, which is composed of more than 6,000 entities operating, at times independently, at others in direct coordination with larger alphabetic agencies, target critical infrastructure routinely and often post the results of these ‘white-hat’ missions online under a moniker made up for fun. It is entirely feasible that the Israelis, who operate in close proximity with America’s own state security apparatus, have done essentially the same thing.
- Nonetheless, confirmation of Israel’s advanced preparations for its April 1st strike comes from the New York Times. It states: “[planning] for the Israeli strike in Syria started two months earlier, two Israeli officials said.” The plans focused on “Mohammed Reza Zahedi” as the “target,” Iran’s commander for Iran’s elite Al-Quds Force in the Levant countries, Syria and Lebanon. Iran’s elite Al-Quds Force is a branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the force Iran exploits to support, broadly speaking, the so-called Axis of Resistance throughout the wider Middle East.
- It is entirely without precedent that the Times claims that “[none] of the [range of responses] the Israeli government expected” amounted to “the ferocity of the Iranian response that actually occurred,” since an earlier publications suggest otherwise. In an article published in February by Israel’s The Economist (i.e., כלכליסט) the authors predicted a response by Hizbollah to an Israeli invasion to be ten times what became the number in Iran’s response to Israel’s April 1st strike.[2] The article, entitled “The Price of Hizbollah,” details the accounts of more than 100 members from both the Israeli government as well as its defense forces. It is predicted there that Hizbollah would fire no less than 2,500 to 3,000 rockets or missiles at Israel from various ranges for a period of 21 days, during which time Israel’s anti-air defense systems would be exhausted. In an article following the Economist (i.e., כלכליסט), Israel’s The Land (i.e., הארץ) provided an infographic detailing both Hizbollah’s ‘arsenal’ of more than 150 rockets or missiles together with concentric circles, indicating the prospective range these projectiles can travel.[3] Needless to say that these concentric circles cover Israel in its entirety. Based on these two articles, both of which come from among Israel’s most affluent petit-bourgeois newspapers, The Economist (i.e., כלכליסט) and The Land (i.e., הארץ), there is simply little more than doubt one must overcome to believe that no Israeli, let alone any one from the Israeli government, could not have predicted anything more than “small-scale attacks” by Iran or its proxies. It is clear that Iran’s response was predicted. One might even say ‘calibrated.’
- “The events made clear that the unwritten rules of engagement in the long-simmering conflict between Israel and Iran have changed drastically in recent months, making it harder than ever for each side to gauge the other’s intentions and reactions.” Iran’s willingness to strike deep within Israeli territory, despite its decision to telegraph the strike, indicates, however, that the ‘rules of the game’ have already changed. Furthermore, Iran has already vowed to retaliate for any future Israeli strike, an unprecedented change in the status quo ante since the Ayatollah Khomeini’s successful coup d’état in 1979.
- In addition to Iran’s decision to change the ‘rules of the game,’ Iran announced its intention to seek the removal of the United States from Iraq, as indicated by an article the pro-Hizbollah Shia news agency in Lebanon, Al-Mayadeen, reported. The article stated how “throughout a meeting, Al-Mandalawi declared that the ‘upcoming weeks will witness the legislation of laws that would end US presence in Iraq.” Al-Mandalawi’s plan, however, fell apart after the US secured a mutually binding security agreement with Iraq, guaranteeing the presence of American for many years to come. Iran’s naval commander recently announced plans to launch a mission into Antarctica, likely in solidarity with Russia’s own, as the Russian owned news agency reported. Iran plans to establish a permanent military base there.
- While no one in Israel died, “[the] Israeli strike in Damascus killed seven Iranian officers, three of them generals, including Mr. Zahedi.” Within the context of Israeli-Iranian relations, these deaths may amount to the politics of the Middle East. Nonetheless, the working classes in both countries, who are but spectators to the unfolding drama between these countries now, could easily become participants in a much wider conflict later, should the leadership in these two countries be unwilling, incapable, or suddenly desire a further breakdown in relations that a new escalation threatens to inspire.
- In fact, one already appears to be in the works, so to speak. The Times noted that “Israel’s war cabinet had ordered the military to draw up plans for a wide-ranging set of strikes against targets in Iran in the event of a large-scale Iranian attack.” Behind closed doors, “leaders argued that Israel should retaliate immediately.” These leaders, who happen to be “considered less hawkish,” are “making the argument” right now.