The Middle East is on a tightrope following the new data emerging following Iran attacked Israel with missiles and drones on the night of April 13 and the Israeli response with a strike once morest Iranian targets in Isfahan early Friday (19.4.24). .
The Israeli attack on Isfahan came in retaliation for the Iranian attack on Israel, which Tehran said was in response to the Israeli strike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus earlier this month.
According to the Guardian, there is now a complete reversal of the rules followed by Israel and Iran in the confrontation between them, which now seems to acquire more dangerous characteristics, as the threshold that might lead to a general ignition has been crossed.
The strikes have brought to light a long-running shadow war between the two sides, the Guardian writes, and also come once morest a backdrop of Iran’s support for Hamas, whose attack on Israel on October 7 prompted Israel’s invasion of Gaza.
A limit has now been crossed, that of mutual fear and self-restraint. And while many analysts and officials estimate that a limited Israeli strike on Iran might mean a return to the previous status quo, another reading expresses the disturbing possibility that this conflict has become more dynamic.
Another source of concern is the failure of Israel’s intelligence services over the past six months, both for the October 7 Hamas attack and for miscalculating how Iran would respond to the April 1 strike in Damascus. As the columnist comments, the same services and the same people are called upon to assess the situation.
Politically, it is hard to see how such a limited response from Israel benefits Benjamin Netanyahu. For a leader who has made so much of the threat posed by Iran and its nuclear program, an Israeli strike that is so limited will be seen by many not as a sign of boldness and determination, as Netanyahu would like, but of weakness.
Already Netanyahu’s coalition ally and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who is eyeing votes from the right wing of Netanyahu’s Likud party, called the X attack “weak”.
While on the Iranian side, early reactions indicate that Tehran is seeking to describe Friday’s incident as insufficiently serious to retaliate, the reasons that led it to fire 300 missiles and drones at Israel last weekend remain valid.
What is clear is that both sides are playing with fire.
AFP: Why Iran does not want escalation
Today’s “measured” Israeli attack once morest Iran and Tehran’s reaction show that the two sides might commit to a de-escalation even though the situation remains explosive, analysts at the French Agency (AFP) estimate.
The international community fears that decades of enmity between Israel and the Islamic Republic might turn into all-out war as the Israeli military continues its assault on Gaza following the October 7 attack on Israel by the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, the which is supported by Tehran.
According to US officials cited by several US television networks, the explosions near a military base in Khazhavarestan, in the center of the country, are linked to an Israeli attack on Iran in retaliation for last weekend’s Iranian strikes.
These new developments come as Israel had threatened to respond to the attack on its soil and despite warnings from the United States, its staunchest ally.
Tehran, however, appeared today to play down the situation, saying an attack without missiles and nuclear facilities would be safe.
“We seem to be at a moment where both sides are seeking to break out of the current cycle of escalation, with Israel launching a very limited attack to show that it is responding to Iranian strikes and Tehran quickly downplaying the incident so that it is not obligated to respond,” estimates Julien Barnes-Dacey of the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Hasni Abidi, of the Geneva-based Study and Research Center for the Arab and Mediterranean World, highlights for his part the almost absolute “symmetry” of the attacks by Iran and Israel, which may lead them to estimate that they can they stay there.
“The Israeli strike hit an airbase that had been used as a platform to launch missiles and drones once morest Israel” last week, it says. And “the Israelis took care not to touch important nuclear sites located in the same province, in Isfahan.”
A situation to appease Tehran, which has “no interest in this crisis lasting”, because its highest priority is to continue its nuclear program, a condition for the regime’s survival, the Middle East expert estimates.
In its attack on Israel last weekend, Iran was also able to measure “Israel’s air defense capability” as the “unprecedented” mobilization of the United States, the Western camp more broadly joined by Jordan, notes.
Iran launched more than 350 missiles – missiles and drones – in the direction of Israel, almost all of which were intercepted.
Despite the objective evidence advocating for de-escalation, experts remain highly reticent, given the uncertainty surrounding Israel’s intentions.
“For me, Israel is in a logic of escalation and not at all in a logic of de-escalation,” estimates Anies Levalois of the Institut de recherche et d’études sur la Méditerranée et le Moyen-Orient.
“Attacking Iran is a way to have much more support than in the Gaza case,” she says, referring to the fact that Arab countries see Tehran and its nuclear program as a regional destabilizer in itself.
The Israelis, however, chose to respond to Tehran’s attack without heeding Washington’s warnings, he notes, underscoring the unpredictable nature of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is apparently immune to pressure from the United States.
“There is the obvious and the logical, but on the field, we have a player (…) who makes decisions that seem to go once morest Israel’s interests,” observes Anies Levallois. Israel has also stepped up its raids in southern Lebanon once morest the Lebanese Hezbollah – which is supported by Tehran – which may prompt the latter to ‘cleanse’ the shame of Iran”, of which Israel has recently killed several officials.
“The overall regional situation remains extremely heated with the confrontation between these two countries more immediate than ever,” says Julien Barnes-Dacey.
In a less pessimistic scenario, the United States might have been able to accept that Israel would retaliate in exchange for staying there, says Anies Lavallois. Because, he notes, “the risks are too great” for the US, the Gulf countries and for Israel itself.
Read also:
2,500 land owners at the Three-member Court of Appeal of Patras: They have been waiting 52 years for compensation
Nikolaos and Tatiana Blatnik divorce following 14 years of marriage – The announcement of the family
Maternity allowance: The platform has been in operation since yesterday – 12 questions and answers
Groom, Achaios Nikos Polyderopoulos
Instant update with all the news now and via WhatsApp – See here
#Middle #East #boiling #cauldron
