A military prospective: Did Iran’s Strike on Israel Succeed Using a Policy of Tempo Control?

By FatennJabari, Department of International Relations and Strategic Affairs

April 16, 2024

Introduction

A new equation has been introduced by the retaliatory operation launched by Iran directly from its territory, as is known, though it might be the opposite. Matterscouldquicklyescalateinto a broaderwargiven the indicators of Iran’sresponse and expectations of Israel’sreaction. DespiteZionistincentives to drag Iran into a provocativewar, Iran has anotherlogicwith a calculated and somewhatlimitedoperation. Iran seems to understandIsrael’s intentions in the region, startingfrom Palestine, then Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, reaching as far as Yemen and Sudan, where “Iranianproxies” are present in the RedSearegion, pinpointing the exact players in the ongoinggame.

Amidst the international contextsbehindmisleadingstatementsthatcontradict reality, and between talk of a “strongslap” and assertions of “foiling the attack,” Iranian and Israeli narratives diverged on the “militaryresults” of the strikelaunched by Iran on Israel, dubbed “OperationAl-Waad Al-Sadeq” (The True Promise).

Whatis the militaryassessment of thisattackfrom a military perspective?

Israeli Narrative: WhyDoesIsraelDownplay the Iranian Strike Behind the American Shield?

According to the Israeli narrative, minor damages occurredat the “Nevatim Base” withoutdisruptingitsoperations, as stated by the IsraeliArmyspokesperson, AvichayAdraee, accompanied by a video clip of the base.

However, the “Iranian narrative” spoke of targetingboth the “intelligence center” thatprovided the required information for bombing the Iranianconsulate in Damascus, and the “Nevatim Base” fromwhere F-35 aircrafttook off to carry out the strike, causing “extensive damage and renderingthem out of service.”

“Positively, Iran responded to the strike, testingsomeweapons and missiles to ascertaintheirreach to targets or lackthereof, to save face. FacedwithpopularArab sentiment awaiting an Iranianresponse face-to-face withIsrael, if indeed Iran is the nuclearshield in the Middle East, Iran had to respondevensymbolically, calculating the least damage Israelwants to targetwhenitagrees to the ultimateresponse, positioningitself as a direct strategiccombatant on the battlefield, i.e., war.”

Regardless, a valid question remains:

Why is Iran wanted to be included in the list of major warring countries in the Middle East?

Is it the American logic of proxy wars and “enemy” attrition?

Certainly, this is what Iran and major international powers understand well.

On the other hand, despite the absence of human casualties, data indicates that Israel incurred material losses estimated at half a billion dollars in repelling the strike, while the “limited” material damage, according to its claims…

The pro-IsraelifacadecontendsthatIsraeli gains have indeed been realized by effectivelytesting the IronDome system againsta real aerialattackafterinterceptingIranian missiles and drones. This issomething the system’smanufacturersboast about afterlosingtheir global reputation in the warmarket as the strongestZionistshield in the Al-Aqsaoperation on October 7th, whereIsraelinternationallyfailed to cover up itssetbackagainstPalestinianresistancethatcompletelypenetrated and defeated the IronDome system.

Iranian Motives in Evaluating the RetaliatoryResponse:

After the Iraq war, Iran formulateditsdefensive doctrine based on a sacredprinciplethat “Iran neverfightsanotherwar on itssoil.”

Iranian documentation recordedsomeIranian missiles reachingtheirtargets in Israel and soundingalarmsat 750 locations in different directions acrossIsraeliterritory. From a media perspective, Iran worked to globallydisseminatevideos of “dozens of drones” covering Tel Aviv, meaning the Israeli narrative of destroying 99% of the projectiles outsideIsraelis incorrect according to Iraniandefensespecialists. However, a 50% success rate in reachingtargetsseems a relative narrative, not achieving the successanticipated by Iran’s supporters.

Did the strike indeed fail to achieve its objectives?

Dragging the entireregioninto an endlesswaris an option Iran excludes by not involvingitself in thiswar. Iran intentionallypracticed “very large early warning depth” between Iran and Western interests, providing ample time for “situation assessment and airspace and externalinterestsclosure.”

For Israel, thisenabledpreparedness for defense and interception means, beingready, and knowing the trajectories of drones and missiles to interceptthembeforereachinginsideIsrael. Although the Iranianoperationseemsflawedlogically, consideringthat Iran informed Washington that the operationwouldbelimited, the U.S. and Israeliearly warning systemsprovided “early warning depth and ample time for highreadiness and interception of the Iranianstrike.”

Why did Iran choose to exclude the element of surprise, the “most important principle in war,” and should have initiated the strike using “fast missiles” rather than “slow-speed drones,” meaning they opted for the worst choice when starting the strike with drones, with a speed not exceeding 185 kilometers per hour? Then missiles were launched, according to military experts, thus, since the appearance of Iranian drones in Iran’s sky, Israel detected that the strike had begun, thus allies prepared to repel the attack.

Did Iran, the country of nuclear laboratories, overlook such blunders, or did Iran, by not sliding into war, decide that the strike was merely an Iranian venting that should have happened after Israel targeted the Iranian consulate in Damascus only?

Whatever the case may be, divergent estimates of the Iranian response indicate that Israel, which targeted the destruction of the Iranian consulate building in Damascus, had carried out its operation in Damascus, meaning Israel neither appreciates nor will ever be capable of attacking Iran on Iranian soil. Nevertheless, Iran launched a dense fleet of deadly drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles towards Israel, in an “unprecedented attack.”

Conclusion

The war on Gaza demonstrated the fragility of the concept of regional security in the Middle East. This is what Iran realizes, that any potential explosion in the Iranian-Israeli shadow conflict will lead to the collapse of what remains of regional security.

Iran states regardingitspolicy of tempo control withIsraelthatitdid not practice revenge as much as itisitslegitimate right guaranteed to itaccording to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter in response to the crime of targeting the occupation entityagainst the Iranianconsulate in Damascus, consideringthatrevenge has anotherpolicy.