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.

 

MOST READ

Exit mobile version