Connect with us

Middle East

Israel’s attack on Isfahan signals a change in strategy

Published

on

The drone attack on the Iranian military facility in Isfahan signals a significant shift in Israel’s strategy to contain Iran. Washington, which now prioritizes the Asia-Pacific region but worries that China and Russia may fill the vacuum left in the Middle East, has given its implicit approval to this shift.

Iran officially blamed Israel for the January 28 drone attack on a military facility in Isfahan. Early investigations suggest that the Israeli regime was responsible for this drone attack, Said Iravani, Iran’s Permanent Representative to the UN, wrote in a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. ‘Iran reserves its legitimate and inherent right to defend its national security and respond resolutely to any threats or wrongful actions by the Israeli regime, wherever and whenever deemed necessary,’ the letter said.

What is known about the attack?

  • Iranian state-run news agency announced that micro-drones hit an advanced weapons-production facility of the Iranian Ministry of Defense on the night of January 28.
  • On January 29, The WSJ wrote that the drone attack was carried out by Israel, based on unnamed US officials and people familiar with the operation.
  • “Washington had no hand in the Isfahan attack,” Israeli public broadcaster KAN quoted an unnamed US official.
  • “We don’t have a comment on these reports,” an Israeli army spokesman told Anadolu Agency.
  • According to “Nournews,” a news outlet with close ties to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, the equipment used in the attack was transferred into Iran with the help of separationist Kurdish groups based in Iraq’s northern region under orders by a foreign security service.

Israel’s shift in strategy

Israel’s actions have so far followed a plan that prioritizes combating Iran’s nuclear program and extra-Iran militia groups. Israel’s killings of scientists working for Tehran’s nuclear program and strikes on the country’s nuclear facilities were all part of this overarching strategy. Second, Israel launched aerial attacks on Iranian militias, Tehran-backed armed groups, and ammunition shipments. At this point, it is important to stress that Russia has “overlooked” the air strikes against the “Iran-backed militias” in Syria. This implicit agreement with Russia knowingly made Tel Aviv reluctant to provide strategic weapons to Ukraine until yesterday.

By adding a third pillar, Israel has expanded its plan with the Isfahan strike: targeting Iran’s missile and UAV technology directly on Iranian soil.

The reason behind the shift

So why did Israel need this shift in strategy, and what is its purpose?

First off, the Tel Aviv government views Iran’s nuclear arsenal as an existential danger. Therefore, from the very beginning, Israel has opposed the Democrats-led United States, sitting at the table with Iran. Tel Aviv advocates for a continuation of the “hawkish” approach to Iran that the Trump administration has taken. Coming at a time when nuclear talks were hopeless, this strike conveys that Israel does not hesitate to engage in a harder fight with Tehran. This not only shows the politically discordant United States how determined Tel Aviv is in terms of Iran but also paves the way for “normalization” with Arab countries suffering from the “Iran threat.” Moreover, by the “external enemy,” Israel also makes an effort to assuage concerns voiced about “extreme” actions that provoked a backlash among Israelis, such as the judicial reform of the extreme right-wing government. As a matter of fact, both the conflict that flared up due to Israel’s hardened policy against the Palestinians in the West Bank for a while and the attack in Isfahan have already overshadowed the protests against the government.

Timing is remarkable

  • Just one day after the conclusion of the “Juniper Oak” exercise, billed as the “most important joint military exercise ever” of the United States and Israel, and allegedly practicing the attack plan, the strike on Iran supposedly went into effect.
  • White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan was in Tel Aviv 10 days before the strike. Furthermore, a “surprise” strike occurred while CIA chief William Burns was in Israel. It is also remarkable that the highest-profile visit from the United States to Israel (the US Secretary of State) since Netanyahu came to power happened only three days after the attack.

Even if the United States did not have a direct role in the attack’s planning or organization, all these “coincidences” indicate that it had the knowledge and consent.

The timing of the strike for Iran also gives clues about Israel’s “political calculations.”

  • Criticism is growing, particularly in Europe, due to the demonstrations that began following the killing of Mahsa Amini, the method by which these rallies were crushed, and the death sentences given to protestors.
  • Despite continued behind-the-scenes talks, little hope is there for a return to the Nuclear Deal.
  • Furthermore, the attack “coincided” with the Atlantic reaction on the grounds that Tehran provided drones to Russia in the Ukraine War.
  • It should also be noted that Tel Aviv, chastised for not providing high-tech weaponry to Ukraine before the strike, audibly stated that it was considering supplying these weapons to Kyiv shortly after the attack.

In summary, Israel undoubtedly made a political “maneuver” to send a message to the West by attacking Tehran’s missile and UAV manufacturing facility, criticized for providing drones to Russia. This move demonstrates that Israel is unafraid to state its position clearly in the ongoing war between China, Russia, and the US over the sphere of influence in the Middle East.

How will Iran respond?

Iran has repeatedly declared that it will retaliate against the Israeli attack on Isfahan. Tehran’s reprisal for earlier assaults was either drone strikes on Israeli warships or coordinated cyberattacks against Israeli infrastructure. Last year, Iran also launched a ballistic-missile attack on an allegedly Israeli facility in Erbil. Tehran possibly avoids starting a new front while paying the costs of these low-intensity wars and conflicts and the enormous cost of internal demonstrations and economic sanctions. Tehran will most likely prefer to continue its low-intense fight with Tel Aviv on existing fronts.

However, Iran’s possibility of getting rid of the entrapment with a solution that Israel will not be pleased with is likely, albeit low. Iran has a bargaining chip in the nuclear negotiations: the drones exported to Russia. Why? Because Russia, not Iran, is the top priority for the United States and Europe. In addition, the sooner Europe, in need of Russian gas, agrees with Iran, the quicker it will have the opportunity to create another alternative to Russian gas.

US interest

Having been focused on the Asia-Pacific region for some time and gotten ready to struggle with China, the Biden administration is not keen on escalating tensions in the Middle East, especially not those that include Israel. However, Washington is worried that China and Russia will step in to fill the vacuum in the region. The old allies of the US in the Middle East are attempting to cultivate ties with its “enemies,” China and Russia, out of concern that they will be left vulnerable without the US security cover. On the other hand, these allies are forming new coalitions against Iran, their “foe” in the region. Under these circumstances, the United States seems to implicitly approve Israel’s new policy of raising tension against Iran, expecting Israel not to be drawn into a new adventure. It remains unknown which guarantees Israel gave to the US to get this approval. However, soon after the Isfahan strike, Netanyahu’s declaration on CNN that they may provide weapons to Ukraine offers insights into the nature of the such guarantee. Nevertheless, it is too soon to predict whether Israel would really supply weapons to Ukraine despite Russia. However, it is evident that the period has just begun in which Israel will make its name in the region through extremely “hawkish” policies.

 

Middle East

Iran resumes ballistic missile assembly using stockpiled parts

Published

on

Iran has resumed ballistic missile production in underground facilities, despite statements by Israeli and US authorities asserting that this capacity had been completely eliminated.

According to a report by The Wall Street Journal citing US and Middle Eastern officials, the Tehran administration is utilizing pre-stockpiled components in the manufacturing process.

Officials report that despite strikes on missile sites and industrial installations at the beginning of the war, Iran continues the assembly of both solid- and liquid-fuelled missiles.

Intelligence data indicates activity at numerous underground centres, including the Khojir complex in the southeast of the country, along with efforts to establish additional underground assembly points to protect against new air strikes.

Current assembly operations are being maintained at lower volumes compared with pre-war levels, as US and Israeli operations destroyed several facilities and a naval blockade has impeded the import of components and solid-fuel ingredients.

Assessing the process, Tal Inbar, a senior analyst at the US-based Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, stressed that damaged infrastructure can be repaired during periods when facilities are not targeted, and parts procured from other countries can be stored there.

Inbar noted that it would be naive to believe Iran is not rebuilding its missile production capacity.

Arguing that the facilities were destroyed and Tehran has suffered severe losses, the official stated that Iran remains weaker than ever before, and US President Donald Trump will never permit the country to acquire nuclear weapons.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell stated that the US has destroyed up to 90% of Iran’s drone, ballistic missile, and naval industrial infrastructure, severely degrading Tehran’s ability to launch missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Another US government official pointed out that the Tehran administration may have revived production, albeit on a low scale, following preliminary talks conducted in mid-June with the Trump administration regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war. The official noted that existing stockpiles are sufficient to assemble at least two hundred missiles.

A CNN report in late May indicated that the Tehran administration was attempting to reopen underground missile shelters, struck by the US and Israel with costly munitions, using bulldozers and dump trucks.

Excavation activities accelerated after the April ceasefire decision; out of 69 tunnel entrances struck across 18 distinct locations, 50 have been made accessible again.

Experts stressed that it is impossible to destroy missile power solely by bombing tunnel entrances, underlining the limitations of such bombardments.

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed in April that they had effectively ended Iran’s missile programme. However, an NBC News report noted that Tehran utilized the ceasefire period to reconstitute its military strength.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Mohammed bin Salman urges Trump to strike Houthis after Mokha falls

Published

on

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has requested that US President Donald Trump launch air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.

According to two US officials who spoke to Axios, Trump rejected the request, and US officials emphasised that the administration has no plans for direct intervention against the Houthis for now.

Oil prices surged on Thursday after the resistance led by Houthi militias (Ansarallah) seized the strategic coastal city of Mokha in Yemen.

This development brought the Yemeni resistance one step closer to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which is vital for global trade and Saudi oil exports.

With Iran already disrupting traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, Houthi control over Bab el-Mandeb could provide Tehran with powerful new leverage over the US and its Gulf allies.

On Thursday, as Houthi forces advanced towards the coastal city of Mokha and Saudi-backed Yemeni forces retreated, bin Salman telephoned Trump to brief him on the deteriorating situation.

A few hours later, the prince called again to request that Trump carry out US air strikes against the Houthis.

Trump declined, but a US official stated that the administration would provide Saudi Arabia with intelligence and targeting data on the Houthis.

The official noted that approximately 200 US military personnel are currently stationed in Saudi Arabia, providing non-military support.

A senior Trump administration official indicated that Washington’s priority is keeping the Red Sea open, while leaving the broader fight to regional partners.

“We are in continuous dialogue with Saudi Arabia and the Government of the Republic of Yemen regarding regional stability,” the official said.

The official continued:

“The US remains focused on protecting our core national security interests, such as ensuring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, while empowering our regional partners to take the lead in managing and resolving regional security challenges.”

The US is concerned by the rapidly escalating conflict in Yemen and is seeking to avoid direct military intervention while increasing its support for Saudi Arabia.

According to two sources familiar with the matter, Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), travelled to Saudi Arabia on Thursday for urgent coordination meetings.

The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemeni resistance forces reignited in July after Riyadh blocked an Iranian aircraft carrying senior Houthi officials from landing in Sanaa following their return from Ali Khamenei’s funeral.

Bin Salman requested Trump’s political support to strike Sanaa airport, but made clear that Saudi Arabia did not require US military assistance. Trump granted his support.

The Houthis subsequently retaliated by attacking Saudi tankers in the Red Sea. These strikes threatened a route crucial to the kingdom’s oil exports, and the group later expanded its attacks to Saudi energy facilities.

Saudi Arabia and its Yemeni allies responded with air strikes and ground operations against Houthi positions.

Saudi Arabia’s request for direct US military intervention marks a sharp reversal from July, when Riyadh informed Washington that it could manage the Houthis on its own.

As clashes intensified, the Saudis began seeking progressively greater support from the US.

Sources close to the discussions noted that in recent weeks, US military and civilian officials informed their Saudi counterparts that Trump’s directive is to keep American forces focused on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, and to avoid opening a new front.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Netanyahu ignored MBZ warning on Hamas 7 October plan, report says

Published

on

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly ignored a direct warning from UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the run-up to 7 October 2023, according to an investigation by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

The report states that the UAE leader, widely known as MBZ, was convinced in September 2023 that an explosion was imminent in the region, particularly given the escalating tensions in the West Bank.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who maintains close ties with bin Zayed, recounted: “In the months leading up to the war, he spoke with me about this issue frequently. He consistently conveyed the message that the situation needed to be de-escalated. He even dispatched a special envoy to Israel who met with the prime minister. The emir appeared to sense that the region was on the verge of erupting.”

MBZ also engaged in direct discussions with Netanyahu. These exchanges followed a standard operational protocol: a representative from the United Arab Emirates embassy would arrive at the prime minister’s office equipped with a specialised, secure telephone device to ensure confidentiality.

However, according to the newspaper, the call initiated by bin Zayed on this occasion was extraordinary in nature.

A week and a half before 7 October 2023, the UAE ruler placed a call to Netanyahu from the Presidential Palace in Abu Dhabi, and the two leaders spoke for 45 minutes.

During this conversation, bin Zayed warned that Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, was planning a major operation against Israel.

Bin Zayed voiced deep concern that such an event would not only lead to significant bloodshed, but would also destabilise the entire region and undermine the Abraham Accords.

Haaretz reported that three senior foreign sources possess direct knowledge of the call’s contents, marking the first public disclosure of the conversation’s existence.

A close Palestinian adviser to bin Zayed, who had emigrated from Gaza to Abu Dhabi years earlier and maintained extensive connections across the Gaza Strip, was also present during the exchange.

According to the adviser, the UAE ruler stressed to Netanyahu that Israel needed to prepare for this specific threat.

The adviser stated:

“The emir explained that, according to his assessment, Sinwar was preparing for a major event. He told Netanyahu that Israel had to be prepared. At the same time, he proposed working towards an economic solution for the Gaza Strip to prevent escalation, alongside calming the situation in the West Bank.”

Bin Zayed urged Netanyahu to take the matter seriously. Yet, to the emir’s surprise, the prime minister reacted with relative calm.

Netanyahu told bin Zayed that, in his own assessment, Hamas was planning to operate in the West Bank area. Reassuring the Emirati leader, Netanyahu insisted that Israel was prepared for any scenario.

The UAE leader later recounted his conversation with Netanyahu and his subsequent warning to CIA Director William J. Burns.

Bin Zayed shared with Burns the intuitive alarm he had sought to convey to Netanyahu—that “something over there is about to blow”—and noted the Israeli prime minister’s conviction that the unstable theatre was in fact the West Bank.

“The emir hoped that, despite Netanyahu’s reserved reaction, he would take the message seriously and take action,” the adviser said.

However, neither anticipated that the prime minister would hear the warning without briefing the heads of his defence and security establishments: neither the director of the Shin Bet, nor the director of the Mossad, nor the chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces was informed of MBZ’s warning.

Haaretz noted that Gaza-related negotiations between Israel and Hamas had been proceeding smoothly in early 2023, providing the context in which the Emirati ruler’s concerns emerged.

The report received swift corroboration from the Israeli political opposition. Former prime minister and leader of the B’Yachad party, Naftali Bennett, stated that he knew the warning issued by UAE leader Mohamed bin Zayed to Netanyahu concerning Hamas’s plans prior to 7 October was genuine.

Speaking to 103FM, Bennett said: “I am telling you: I know this to be true.”

Bennett continued:

“Mohamed bin Zayed of the UAE warned Netanyahu that Sinwar was planning an operation. The head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate, Abbas Kamel, also notified Netanyahu a few days before the massacre that a major operation was being planned. I do not wish to discuss my sources with anyone. I am telling you: I know this fact to be true.”

Contending that Netanyahu had led Israel “blindly into this horrific disaster,” the opposition figure asserted: “He was so deeply captive to the conception that Hamas was an asset that, despite receiving explicit warnings, he did nothing.”

Bennett maintained that Netanyahu bears direct responsibility for 7 October, not merely by virtue of being prime minister, but because “he spent 15 years strengthening Hamas and doing nothing.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey