Gathering the Scattered Fragments: Who Can Piece Together Iran’s Quiet Retaliation?

By: Mohamed Faraj, Political Analyst 18-04-2024

Iran’s retaliation fragments resonate beyond changing battle dynamics, shaking the foundations of Western and Israeli defenses. This process coincides with the establishment of a new international order.

The significance of Iran’s comprehensive retaliation goes beyond a single night filled with missiles and drones. The importance lies in the historical shifts it causes, in its repercussions, interactions, and, in other words, its fragments.

First Fragment: America’s Blink, and More!

We do not possess accurate and definitive statistics on the number of Iranian drones and missiles that have bypassed the American, French, and British air defense systems. Similarly, we lack a precise breakdown of the drones and missiles launched by the Yemeni armed forces and the Iraqi resistance since their involvement in the ‘Al-Aqsa Storm’—how many were launched, how many reached their targets, how many were intercepted, and how many hit their intended targets upon arrival.

Although we lack these numbers with sufficient accuracy, we have enough impressions, visual evidence, and live results that prove the failure of the American presence to protect ‘Israel.’ The image of American deterrence has been damaged to an unprecedented extent in its contemporary history. The presence, represented by a number of military bases, combat and logistical, declared and undeclared, in addition to the naval vessels and soldiers sent, failed to perform the ‘interception’ task in line with what we ‘know’ about American capabilities, described as an ever-vigilant eye.

One of the fragments of the Iranian response hit this very image; the image of American military superiority. We are not exaggerating here to depict weakness but have long exaggerated the image of strength, and Washington has been nourished by the power of illusion for a long time to deter us, often without us noticing.

Iran, in particular, played a role in dismantling this illusion of power. When it targeted the Ain al-Assad base in 2020, it was the first time since World War II, and afterwards, it became a normal event that could be repeated.

We used to believe before that the American bases were protected by what we do not know, and their responses were devastating beyond our tolerance, but the first scratch often opens the door to deep-seated wounds.

Scott Ritter says, in his interview with George Galloway, that what Iran did in its response to ‘Israel’ is one of the most significant military demonstrations in modern times, and Iran has shown that it can retaliate with a kind of force that cannot be repelled.

In the book ‘Why the West Can’t Win’ by Fadi Lama, there is a serious attempt to expose the illusions of American power, starting from concealing the true number of American soldiers killed in Iraq to the flaws of the F-35, which we will only know when we see them in the sky more often!

We are simply facing a new phase where the illusion of American exceptional power is fading, and belief in the self-power of the region’s peoples is growing…

Second Fragment: Rogue States?

Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Washington sought a direct and explicit authorization from the United Nations. Russia, Germany, and France, which supported exploring a longer diplomatic path with Iraq, were not enthusiastic about it. The most Washington could achieve was UN Security Council Resolution 1441, calling for the inspection of Iraq’s facilities and the right to use ‘all necessary means’ if weapons of mass destruction were found.

The faint images presented by Colin Powell did not convince anyone on the Security Council, nor did the fabricated testimonies. Washington and London then decided to bypass international bodies and relied on Iraq’s general situation under Chapter VII sanctions, considering domestic polls and the positions of Congress and Parliament sufficient to legitimize the war.

There is no relationship with the United Nations and the Security Council that resembles what ‘Israel’ practices. Despite ‘Israel’s’ auspicious start with UN resolutions (Resolution 181), ‘Israel’ thereafter tops the world in ignoring UN resolutions and Security Council decisions (from Resolution 56 to 2728) and violating UN Charter provisions.

The American veto alone is not what reinforces this special relationship of neglect. Even a Security Council resolution issued three weeks ago, passing with US abstention rather than veto, did not change anything in Israeli behavior because it simply was not a Chapter VII resolution and carried no sanctions.

When ‘Israel’ executed its operation against the Iranian consulate in Damascus, it knew that international law considers it an attack on the territory of a sovereign state, just like an attack on the capital, Tehran. However, with its long history of flouting international conventions, ‘Israel’ disregards this, especially since the United States, Britain, and France shielded it in the Security Council from condemnation, arguing that more details about the building needed to be investigated!

Contrary to the American and Israeli images, the Iranian response is woven and consistent with international law, with Iran not making a single misstep in its response.

Iran relied on Article 51 of the UN Charter; the inherent right to self-defense.

It’s worth noting that the principle of the inherent right to self-defense was one of the regulating ideas at the beginning of the Western Enlightenment era, which John Locke discussed in his book ‘Two Treatises of Government.’

Simply put, you cannot wait for security forces to reach you when an intruder invades your home and threatens you with a weapon. At that moment, the inherent right to self-defense seems quicker to arrive.

While Iran delayed its inherent right to self-defense, the Security Council did not arrive, so Iran decided to use the deferred inherent right to self-defense.

It is also worth mentioning that Putin is waging his war against NATO in Ukraine using the same Article 51. He made the necessary legal arrangements meticulously, including recognizing the republics of Luhansk and Donetsk, concluding the necessary joint agreements with them, and then entering the war.

Third Fragment: Crossing Skies, but with Caution!

During the war, Israel relies on jamming and spoofing satellite signals to mislead GPS coordinates. They attempt to weaken incoming satellite signals and replace them with misleading ones.

Reports from international organizations continue to emphasize the dangers of using these systems, particularly the misleading of civilian aviation routes and the confusion caused to pilots by altered instructions. Similarly, maritime navigation suffers due to constant jamming, posing risks to navigation paths in seas and oceans.

Israel shows no concern for the repercussions of the jamming and spoofing systems it employs in the region, claiming control over drone operations, and disregarding the protests from neighboring countries regarding the safety of travelers and cargo ships.

Despite the ineffectiveness of Israel’s technical practices in misleading drones, especially with the diversity of satellite options for location tracking as alternatives to GPS, such as the Chinese Beidou system, Israel persists in its risky technological activities.

Iran, concerned with responding effectively to Israel, did not hesitate to warn regional countries, prioritizing the safety of civilian aviation and maritime navigation, thus demonstrating its responsibility towards regional security and safety.

Since 1938 in Iran, and even before the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, in a clear challenge to the former Shah, Reza Khan, Mohammad Hussein Kashani issued a fatwa stating that Jihad in Palestine (and not elsewhere) is a duty for Arabs and Muslims. In another historic context, Iran’s messages come closer to Palestine and reach beyond mere responses.

The fragments of Iran’s response go beyond changing the rules of engagement, undermining the prestige of Western and Israeli defenses, and aligning with the construction of a new international system.