We are witnessing history in the social media era and forget that historical events are years in the making, happening gradually then suddenly all at once.

The past week has exposed and disappointed many warmongers who were hoping for a dramatic escalation in the Middle East. Israel didn’t wait until Passover to retaliate to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s response to the 4/1 IDF attack on Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) personnel in a building adjacent to the embassy in Damascus on grounds the Regime views as its diplomatic presence. Regardless of what side you’re rooting for, it was clear that Iran was going to do something, and even clearer that Israel wasn’t going to let the hundreds of missiles go unnoticed.

Iran and Israel’s objectives are different. How you define goals will shape whether initiatives are viewed to be successful or not. For example, when Israel stated that Hamas’ destruction was the objective of its response to 10/7, you knew it would be hard for Israel’s response to be viewed as a success. In any case, when Israel killed the IRGC’s commanders in Syria, it eliminated people it viewed as a risk, setting back Iran a bit operationally in the Levant, but ultimately would not change the equation much. In fact, it heightened tensions. After all, Iran was now going to seek revenge, especially since most nations understood that its response was fair game.

And, for the first time in over 1,000 years, Iran launched an attack on another nation, hurling missiles and launching drones to attack Israeli military bases, including the one in Nevatim that had served as launching pad to kill the IRGC individuals. To me, an Iranian-born Canadian who’s critical of many of the regime’s policies but understands and views geo-politics from a neutral, pragmatic perspective, I understood why the country felt compelled to respond, but to see it launch an attack on another country was a bit of a red line.

In any case, 10/7 was the first “social media war,” with Hamas combatants recording their acts, and both sides since using social media to win hearts and minds. And in this social media era, people were expecting a rapid fire response. While ministers and media can feed into populist thinking and be impatient, heads of state need to take into account previous understandings & go through layers of people and processes before decision-taking. This requires internal and external communications and takes time. 

But when the initial chips fell, we have seen some interesting diplomatic maneuvers and thinking by the belligerents’ actions. 

Let’s start with Iran. By:

– Retaliating against the Nevatim airfields where Israeli planes took off to strike Damascus on 4/1, was matter-of-factly both a symbolic and legitimate target;
– demonstrating its ability to reach precise targets;
– testing Israeli air defenses to ascertain what would penetrate David’s Sling and the Iron Dome (Israel initially slated a 99% capture rate, but subsequent reports pegged 6 out of 60 of missiles that made it to Israel to have landed on Israeli soil);
– putting a show of strength and using it as a rallying cry to the axis of resistance aficionados who increasingly view Iran as representing the anti-US/Israel/Western hegemony

then agree or disagree, Iran relayed its message that Israel had crossed a red line and it would not take things sitting down.

To me, killing Qasem Suleimaini next to a Baghdad airport was one level, but killing the entire operational squad in Syria on what Iran views as its diplomatic compound was another. But mainly, for Israel – founded on the premise of “Never Again” – the images of rockets falling on Israel and citizens cowering in bomb shelters was part of Iran’s objectives.

Without a doubt, if any Israeli soldiers would have died in Iran’s response, the regime would have been fine with the outcome, but by avoiding civilian areas and giving Israel enough fair warning (the drones alone took hours to get to Israel), it was obvious that Iran’s objectives was shock and awe and not necessarily death and destruction. 

I was born in Iran, I haven’t been there since I was 6 but I know Iranian psychology, sociology and history as much as anyone else. Here, they were limited due to Israel’s incredible air defense systems, strong deterrence, etc., but they were clever enough to convey their message, even if long-term, they fell into Israel’s “April Fool’s Day” trap.

Israel Played It Equally Astutely

Israel’s PM Benyamin Netanyahu has waited over two decades to attack Iran; Israel’s main ally and sponsor USA included Iran in a list of seven nations it sought to regime change. Yet despite Iran giving Israel an opportunity to strike back, America implored Israel to avoid retaliating even though it was clear Israel had to retaliate. Israel had never failed to retaliate when people or nations have attacked it. We’re talking about the folks who inspired the movie Munich, after all. Iran had initially viewed its response as evening the score, and added that if Israel took any further steps, it would respond with missiles “within seconds,” worrying many about a dramatic escalation. And, given that Iran’s investments and proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen create an arc around Israel in the Levant, I don’t think they were bluffing had Israel caused any kind of material damage, let alone casualties or destruction to its nuclear program/facilities. I’m not defending the regime, after all, these are the same people who bombed a Jewish cultural centre in Argentina in the 1990s. Thus, had their missiles penetrated Israel’s air defense systems and killed soldiers in the military bases it targeted, the regime would not have shed any tears. But from a diplomacy sense, death and destruction was secondary to posturing. Iran knew that by sending a couple of missiles, Israel would have swatted them down like flies, so it had to go for numbers. Conversely, Israel demonstrated on 4/1 that it could be super precise, but precisely destroying things or causing death to people was only going to further enrage the Mullahs.

Israel likely exhausted as many options as possible. While some of Israel’s planes don’t need refueling, they do need to go through other countries’ airspace. Whereas allies and neighboring nations were willing to align with Israel in defending against Iran’s response (as Saudi and Jordan did on April 13), they were simply not going to participate in the same manner in an offensive response – which this was going to be. So Israel’s actual options were limited, even if tops on their list were a series of devastating strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, spread across the mountainous country.

I’ve worked in media and finance for 25 years, witnessing and experiencing Jewish and Israeli ingenuity first hand; while Israel’s actions (on Khamenei’s birthday no less) disappointed the laymen and warmongers, it was a masterclass in diplomacy and military history. 

Biden v Trump & the Spectre of WWIII 

As Israel narrowed down the military options and diplomatic repercussions of each one, I was equally impressed and surprised with Israel’s move. Recognizing that there may not be an obvious path for Donald Trump to win the electoral college and reclaim the White House, it understands that the current Biden regime doesn’t have the appetite to manage a war in Iran, which would essentially officially make the current series of conflicts into a full fledged third world war. Russia has been revitalized and its industrial and Human Resources are clearly overtaking Ukrainian resolve.

Israel’s goals were altogether different. Its ultimate objective is to eliminate the nuclear threat posed by Iran. But Iran’s missile shower showed that any kinetic attack (not just nuclear) would create a nightmare – and especially if compounded by its proxies surrounding it and sustained over time – then it would end the perception of Israel as a safe place for the Jewish people. There was no way, then, that Israel could change the arithmetic by a strike, especially given the refuelling and foreign airspace challenges, let alone the diplomatic nuances given that many nations felt that Iran had the right to respond to the Damascus 4/1 strike. 

There have been a series of alleged stories of what Israel did and didn’t do, from the eye-raising, to the doubtful, and the surreal, i.e. 
– Israel took out some of the air defense systems to avoid triggering Iran’s detections, 
– Israel disabled radars in Syria and overtook control of Iran’s drones to use them against Iranian sites,
– Israel was going to drop a nuclear bomb, until Russia stepped in to blow up said plane, 
– the list goes on.

But to their credit, as well, Israel also didn’t kill anyone (not their goal, especially since they have killed many others which led to this impasse). To be clear, there was never any chance that Israel would kill civilians in Iran; but there was a risk it would target more IRGC personnel, as it has. But they also did not respond with a show of strength that would have forced Tehran to respond as stated. Israel “froze” Iran’s hand, in that sense. As Israel did not hit key nuclear or military installations (which would have been risky) but did indeed take out one of Iran’s air defence systems without triggering any defence mechanisms, then Israel sent a message to Iran to sit back and not escalate any further; while post Iran’s attack retaining the right to hit back Iran even moreso than ever via assassinations, cyberattacks, meddling and interfering in Iran’s domestic affairs (as its media has been suggesting), and eventual strikes aided with US and others like Saudi Arabia, Jordan.

It’s brilliant, although seemingly underwhelming and ineffective. But in fact, it was extremely effective to discourage any further attacks against Israel, and not giving Iran the incentive to escalate. It also retained optionality.

Israel’s response is not called Iron Spike or Spear or Strike, but Iron Shield, suggesting it will use multiple efforts on many fronts to push back Iran away from around Israel and on Iranian soil through a myriad of initiatives.

But, We Have Now Entered a New Phase

But make no mistake about it, the tit-for-tat on 4/1 and 4/13 pushed the regional rivals into a new phase of its decade long relationship. This was the first time Iran hit Israel, and Israel hit Iran, directly. But it won’t be the last.

Israel and Iran’s dalliances are unique in that the nations:
– don’t share borders,
– are not situated across one another by any body of water,
– have no territorial nor commercial disputes, and
– Jewish and Iranian people don’t share any enmity towards one another.
In theory, Iran and Israel should be allies trying to balance Arab nations, but alas, no. Iran has taken on the Palestinian cause – if not for purpose then for posturing, going on offense vs staying back on defense – so it has become Israel’s mortal enemy.

Dameshk 4/1 changed the dynamics, and the IRGC wrote a new chapter in the pages of history by launching missiles down on Israel. The Israeli threat has moved away from Gaza and the West Bank to Iran’s doorsteps… and the Regime has no one to blame but itself.