Did Khamenei miscalculate and exaggerate Iran’s missile attack on Israel? – First post

For years, Iran and Israel have waged an intense shadow war and have consciously avoided a direct, all-out war. That could change soon.

After Iran’s missile attack on Israel earlier this week, an all-out war between the two arch-enemies seems more likely than ever.

To advance its interests in the Middle East and wage an indirect war against Israel and its ally the United States, Iran supports a number of armed groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis and Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria. Of these groups, Hezbollah is the largest and strongest and also the closest group to Iran.

These armed groups under the banner of the “Axis of Resistance” have been central to Iran’s geopolitical ambitions and the years-long indirect war against Israel. However, now that Iran has directly attacked Israel for the second time this year, the Islamist regime has bypassed this network and jumped into the ring itself. While Iran appeared to be motivated by the idea that the missile attack could deter Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remained defiant.

Just like Mohammed Deif of Hamas and Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah before them, the ruler in Tehran has made a big mistake and will pay for it, said Netanyahu.

By all accounts, Israel is expected to respond much more forcefully this time than in April – when Iran attacked Israel for the first time ever. After this week’s attack, Iran sent messages that appeared to seek a way out, such as Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi’s statement that Iran had only attacked military targets and had no interest in further attacks. But it appears to have misjudged Israel’s appetite for tolerance and risk.

Iran was cornered and felt it had no choice but to act

In recent weeks, Israel has cornered Iran like never before. In July, a huge embarrassment occurred when Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated just hours after attending the presidential inauguration. Then in September, in a stunning campaign of sabotage and military force, Israel destroyed Hezbollah’s communications network and overthrew its entire leadership – including Chief Nasrallah.

At the same time, Hamas’s main Palestinian ally, Hamas, had been effectively removed from power in the Gaza Strip and reduced to a scattered insurgent group.

To hold the so-called Axis of Resistance together, Iran felt it had no choice but to act, says Md. Muddassir Quamar, a Middle East affairs scholar at the School of International Studies (SIS) at Jawaharlal Nehru University ( JNU). ).

“Iran’s intention with the missile attack was to clarify the situation and not to escalate it. It had to respond – albeit symbolically – to give the “Axis of Resistance” confidence that Iran was on its side and to signal to Israel and the United States that Iran would not stand idle while Israel defeated Hamas and Hezbollah decimated,” says Quamar.

In every respect, Iran appears to have miscalculated. Quamar tells Firstpost that while Iran may not have sought escalation, it is inevitable.

“Even if the escalation is unintentional, it is inevitable, especially since Netanyahu has directly addressed the Iranian people and threatened regime change in Iran,” said Quamar, associate professor at the Center for West Asian Studies at JNU’s SIS.

Iran misjudged Israel’s tolerance for risk and taking hits

The whole purpose of the “Axis of Resistance” was to avoid all-out direct war and wage a shadow war.

Now that Iran has directly attacked Israel, it has negated the very premise of these groups. Now Iran has no plausible deniability and can no longer avoid direct confrontation by claiming that non-state actors – and not the Iranian regime – carried out attacks.

Iran made a series of miscalculations in its missile strike this week.

First, Iran has overestimated Israel’s tolerance for attacks. In the nearly year-long war, Iran and its groups have crossed almost every red line for Israel – kidnapping elderly civilians and children, mass rape, bombing Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and displacing several thousand Israelis for almost a year. When such red lines are crossed, ballistic missile fire appears to be the final straw. Iran believed that Israel would also tolerate this and therefore not risk war – a misjudgment.

Second, Iran underestimated Israel’s willingness to take risks. After almost a year of war, and although Israel’s intelligence and security apparatus initially failed, the Mossad and the military have amazingly saved their reputation with assassinations in Tehran, Gaza and Beirut, as well as the systematic infiltration and dismantling of the enemy’s communications system. Despite action after action, Israel has avoided any real consequences. Now, emboldened by such successes, Israel’s appetite for risk is high.

Quamar, the Middle East expert at JNU’s SIS, told Firstpost that Isael is not only encouraged, but that there is a growing determination among Netanyahu and Israeli leaders to dismantle the “Axis of Resistance,” which they see as an existential threat.

“Israel is certainly encouraged by success in Gaza and Lebanon and has an advantage in the ongoing conflict. Many in Israel view Iran and its proxies as an existential threat after October 7th. They have the full support of the United States and the Biden administration, which means they want to transfer the war to Iran. Depending on how things develop now, the region faces a long and bitter war with serious political, economic and strategic implications,” says Quamar.

Third, Iran appeared to have misinterpreted the Israeli public’s frustration with Netanyahu as disunity among Israelis. Although Israel has been more polarized than ever in the past two years over Netanyahu’s far-right government and controversial decisions such as judicial reform, there is still unity on external threats, and support for Netanyahu has also increased in light of recent military successes.

More Israelis want the government to do “things that we haven’t done in the past because we can’t be constantly attacked from all sides,” said Sima Shine, a former senior intelligence officer who helped shape Israel’s Iran strategy, told The New York Times.

“This is part of the misjudgment of all our enemies. “They don’t understand what October 7th did to the Israeli people and what affected their willingness to take a lot more risks,” Shine said.

Although Iran is known for tailoring its operations to avoid escalation into direct war with Israel, this time it completely misjudged “how much risk the Israelis – and Netanyahu in particular – are willing to take after October 7th “Israel and the scale of the threat it creates,” Matthew Savill, director of military science at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), told Sky News.

Will Israel’s response decide the fate of the Middle East?

Iran has withdrawn for now and the ball is in Israel’s court.

From all indications so far, Israel is taking tougher action against Iran than it did in April, when the response was more about sending a message. Israel attacked an air defense unit near a nuclear facility to signal that Israel can bypass Iranian air defenses and get close to nuclear power plants.

The nuclear facilities are, of course, Israel’s ultimate targets, but Israel has no current plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, four Israeli officials told the Times.

However, if things escalate, Israel may consider resorting to the jugular. A nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel. Iran rejects the existence of the State of Israel and is committed to its destruction. An Iranian nuclear bomb is a red line that Israel cannot allow Iran to cross.

“From Israel’s perspective, it cannot allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. “There would certainly be strong pressure within Netanyahu’s Cabinet to attack these nuclear facilities and essentially overturn Iran’s nuclear weapons program, potentially by years,” Malcolm Davis, senior defense strategy analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), told CNN.

While Israel may not be in the mood to carry out full-scale attacks on nuclear facilities at the moment, attacks on oil refineries and infrastructure are on the horizon, according to The Times.

The exact nature of the response will depend on the level of support from the United States. The White House said Iran would face “severe consequences” and that the United States would work with Israel to enforce the consequences.

Quamar, a Middle East affairs expert at JNU’s SIS, says that while the Iranian military is strong, it is no match for the Israeli-American alliance.

“Israel is militarily stronger and has the full support of the United States. This means that Iran is incapable of getting into a real war, even if it has a strong military. It was this reality that led Iran to wage a shadow war outside its territory through the “Axis of Resistance,” but that now appears to be faltering and is not an encouraging sign for Iran. Iran certainly has a strong military, but it would be difficult to combat Israeli-American power without external support,” says Quamar.