Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, editor-in-chief of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Hours after Iran launched a barrage of armed drones and missiles against Israel, Iran’s military leaders declared “mission accomplished,” having implemented a change in tactics intended to restore the Islamic republic’s deterrence.
In launching its first direct attack on its longtime enemy, Tehran intended the assault to be a muscular – if clearly telegraphed – show of force that would bring its long-running shadow war with the Jewish state into the open.
None of the 170 drones entered Israeli airspace. Twenty-five of the 30 cruise missiles were shot down before crossing the country’s borders and most of the 120 ballistic missiles were destroyed by Israeli air defense systems, according to the Israeli military.
Yet within the Islamic regime, the operation was hailed as a success: a calibrated response aimed at restoring its deterrent character and bolstering its image among regional proxies and domestic loyalists. This was also seen as evidence that Tehran would stand by its threats and be prepared to take decisive action if provocated.
“Iran’s message was clear: we are crazier than you think and we are ready to endure the consequences of war if necessary,” said a person close to the regime. “This is intended to serve as a deterrent and signal to the United States and Israel that ‘enough is enough’.”
The decision to launch a direct attack on Israel represented a significant political gamble for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has traditionally followed a policy of “strategic patience” in response to enemies such as the United States and Israel .
That means the republic’s ultimate decision-maker has sought to avoid direct conflict, even after accusing Israel of assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists and security officials inside the republic. Instead, it has relied on asymmetric warfare and the use of regional proxies, such as Hezbollah and militias in Iraq and Syria.
Ahmad Dastmalchian, former Iranian ambassador to Lebanon, said the attack on Israel “opened a new chapter in Iran’s defense policy” and represents a “paradigm shift, from strategic patience to a defense on several levels.
The attack was launched in retaliation for a suspected Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus that killed seven members of the Revolutionary Guards, including two senior officers.
Israel has launched a series of strikes against Iranian targets in Syria since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack sparked the war in Gaza and triggered a wave of regional hostilities involving Iranian-backed militant groups.
At least 18 members of the Revolutionary Guards have been killed in Syria, while Israeli strikes on southern Lebanon have killed more than 250 fighters from Hezbollah, Iran’s most powerful and important proxy. Meanwhile, Iranian officials have repeatedly said the republic wants to avoid a broader regional war or direct conflict with Israel.
However, Tehran believes the Damascus attack crossed a red line, and also fears that a lack of response “will only further embolden Israeli threats and portray Iran as weak,” according to regime insider .
Iranian officials called the attack “limited,” with the barrage of drones and missiles intended to target an air base and intelligence center that they said Israel used in its April 1 strike against the consulate in Damascus.
“It is true that Israel has intercepted a large number of ‘kamikaze’ drones. But by launching a barrage of drones, Iran’s goal was to overwhelm Israel’s multi-layered air defense so that its missiles could penetrate the system,” said Hamid-Reza Taraghi, a conservative Iranian politician. “The Islamic Republic managed to hit a key military base with seven missiles. »
The Israeli military said the attack caused minimal damage to an air base in the south of the country. No deaths were reported during the night’s barrage, although one child was seriously injured by falling shrapnel after an interception.
Maj. Gen. Hossein Salami, commander of the guards, said the Iranian attack “could have been much larger, but we limited it to only the facilities that the regime used to attack the consulate.”
Hossein Amirabdollahian, Iran’s foreign minister, said Tehran had also warned “our friends” in the region 72 hours in advance of the launch of the attack.
He said Tehran had conveyed a message to Washington on Sunday that its “operation will be limited to the objective of self-defense and punishment of Israel” – signaling its desire to avoid any escalation with the United States.
Iranians who took to social media expressed divergent views, reflecting an increasingly polarized country. Some defended the attack, saying it reignited their sense of national pride and punished Israel. Others thought it was a mistake to bring the country closer to all-out war and worried about the expected Israeli response.
Despite the risks of Israeli retaliation against the republic, Iranian officials seemed, at least on the surface, confident that Israel would not react directly against Iran, betting that Khamenei’s gamble would pay off.
“It was an act of punishment that is now over,” said Dastmalchian, the former ambassador. “If they [Israel] make another mistake, Iran will respond on a much larger scale. But we believe that neither the Americans nor the other parties have any interest in widening the conflict.”