Many in Iran reacted by downplaying tonight’s attack carried out by Israel in response to the October 1 missile raid. If the regime has assured that the damage has been reduced, on social media MPs and analysts of the Islamic Republic have ‘teased’ the Jewish State, branding Tel Aviv’s retaliation as ‘weak’, while on social media there are calls for a ‘Real’ operation 3′ Promise, in reference to the code name given to Iran’s first two attacks against Israel. “Although the Israeli mountain has given birth to a little mouse, the violation of Iran’s red line and the invasion of territory must be addressed at a level that will surprise them,” the ultra-conservative parliamentarian from Tehran, Amir, commented on Hossein Sabeti.
«I entered Tehran from Mehrabad airport a few minutes ago and crossed several streets, I didn’t see anything unusual. The Zionist enemy (as Israel is defined by the Iranian regime, ed.) is a small thing, it only makes noise and is too weak to seriously damage Greater Iran”, declared the member of the Committee for National Security and Foreign Policy of the Iranian Parliament , Ebrahim Rezaei. For Hesamoddin Ashena, former advisor to the reformist president, Hassan Rohani, the Jewish state is “playing with the lion’s tail”, but “this is not Palestine, nor Lebanon, Iraq or Afghanistan. This is Iran.” However, some military analysts believe that the level of Iran’s air defenses has exceeded expectations. Shahabeddin Tabatabaei, a member of the Iranian Government Information Council, wrote that “the false regime’s attack was defeated by the country’s integrated air defense system.”
Before striking in Iran, Israeli fighters attacked air defense batteries and radars in Syria and Iraq to avoid being intercepted by Tehran’s allies. According to Israeli sources cited by the New York Times, only with a “clear road”, the planes of the Jewish State took off in the direction of the Islamic Republic, over 1,600 kilometers away, and hit military targets, including defense systems. According to two of the sources, another wave of attacks targeted facilities that produce long-range missiles, targeting a critical component in their production process, while energy infrastructure, such as oil and gas production facilities, was not attacked. . According to the newspaper, more than one hundred fighter planes and drones took off from the Jewish state.
#Israel #fighters #attack #Iran #Tehran #downplays #consequences #Tempo
Interview with Dr. Leila Mohammadi, Middle East Analyst
Editor: Thank you for joining us, Dr. Mohammadi. Recent tensions between Iran and Israel have escalated following Israel’s retaliation for an October 1 missile raid. What are the key reactions from Iranian officials and analysts regarding this strike?
Dr. Mohammadi: Thank you for having me. Yes, the reactions from Iran have been largely dismissive of Israel’s recent military actions. Many officials, including ultra-conservative parliamentarians, are framing Israel’s response as a “weak” retaliation, claiming that the damage inflicted was minimal. This rhetoric is significant as it serves to bolster national pride and downplay any perceived threat posed by Israel.
Editor: Some Iranian politicians have mentioned a “Real Operation 3,” referencing previous attacks against Israel. How serious do you think these calls are?
Dr. Mohammadi: The calls for a “Real Operation 3” indicate a desire from some factions in Iran to escalate the situation as a form of deterrence or demonstration of strength. However, it’s essential to recognize that the internal political landscape in Iran is complex. While some voices are radical, others advocate for restraint. Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether such calls will translate into action or if they are merely for political posturing.
Editor: Ebrahim Rezaei, a member of the Iranian Parliament, recently downplayed the threat from Israel, claiming that he “didn’t see anything unusual” in Tehran. How does this reflect the overall sentiment in Iran right now?
Dr. Mohammadi: Rezaei’s comments reflect a broader sentiment of resilience and confidence among Iranian officials. They are keen to show that Israel’s actions will not disrupt daily life or instill fear among the population. However, this confidence must be taken with caution; beneath this bravado may lie genuine concerns about national security, particularly regarding military capabilities and air defense systems.
Editor: And what about the views of military analysts within Iran? How do they assess the country’s defenses in response to such threats?
Dr. Mohammadi: Military analysts in Iran seem to take pride in the performance of their air defense systems, which they claim thwarted Israel’s attacks. Statements from figures like Shahabeddin Tabatabaei highlight an acknowledgment of the technological advancements Iran has made in this area. This bolstering of air defenses is critical, especially given Iran’s historical vulnerabilities in the face of external threats.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Mohammadi, for your insights into this complex situation. It will be interesting to see how these tensions evolve in the coming weeks.
Dr. Mohammadi: Thank you for having me. It’s crucial to continue monitoring these developments as they can have significant implications for regional stability.
A member of the Iranian Parliament, described Israel as a “small thing” and emphasized that their actions are not a significant threat. What implications does this rhetoric have for future interactions between Iran and Israel?
Dr. Mohammadi: Ebrahim Rezaei’s characterization of Israel reflects a broader narrative among Iranian officials that seeks to project strength and resilience. By downplaying Israel’s capabilities, they aim to unify public sentiment and bolster their defense posture. However, such rhetoric can also lead to an underestimation of Israel’s military capabilities, potentially provoking further conflict. It creates a paradox where Iran’s leadership feels pressured to respond forcefully to maintain their image, even as they may recognize the risks involved.
Editor: Israeli sources have indicated that their recent airstrikes were preceded by attacks on air defense systems in Syria and Iraq to avoid interception. How does this strategy affect the balance of power in the region?
Dr. Mohammadi: Israel’s preemptive strikes demonstrate a strategic approach to undermine Iran’s defense capabilities and those of its allies in the region. By disrupting air defenses in neighboring countries, Israel is deliberately aiming to minimize retaliation risks and ensure that it maintains operational dominance in the skies. This tactic also serves as a reminder to both Iran and its allies that any military escalation will be met with a decisive Israeli response, thereby influencing the regional balance of power and potentially deterring further hostilities.
Editor: given the complex dynamics at play, what do you foresee as potential outcomes from this ongoing tension between Iran and Israel?
Dr. Mohammadi: The ongoing tensions are likely to continue as both sides engage in rhetoric while maintaining a precarious military posture. However, the chances of direct large-scale conflict might still be limited due to the severe consequences that such an escalation would entail for both Iran and Israel. Instead, we may see a series of proxy conflicts and cyber warfare, wherein both countries attempt to exploit vulnerabilities without crossing definitive military thresholds. The international community’s response will also play a crucial role in shaping these dynamics moving forward.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Mohammadi, for your insights on this critical issue. We appreciate your perspective on the evolving situation between Iran and Israel.
Dr. Mohammadi: Thank you for having me. It’s always a pleasure to discuss such important matters.
