Two Iranian army personnel were killed, according to the Iranian armed forces. An overview.
Which targets were attacked?
The Israeli army said it attacked missile production facilities. It also attacked Iranian anti-aircraft missile sites and other Iranian air defense capabilities “that were intended to restrict Israel’s freedom of airspace in Iran,” the Israel Defense Forces said in a statement.
Iran confirmed attacks on military targets around the capital Tehran and in two provinces bordering Iraq. The first detonations were heard around 2:15 a.m. (00:45 CEST). From the center of Tehran, glowing stripes could be seen in the sky during the night.
Iranian nuclear and oil facilities were apparently not affected.
What are the consequences of the attacks?
According to Iranian information, there was only “limited damage.” No fire or explosions were reported at the largest refinery near Tehran, the local news agency reported.
Iranian airspace was temporarily closed. Air traffic resumed operations in the morning.
Image: (APA/AFP/-)
“}”>
Image: (APA/AFP/-)
In the endless spiral of attacks and counterattacks in the Middle East, the latest Israeli airstrike on Iran is a response to the Iranian missile attack on October 1st. The approximately 200 rockets that were fired were largely intercepted. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant then threatened a “deadly, precise and surprising” response from Israel.
The Iranian rocket attack was in turn a response to the killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon. The Iranian leadership also mentioned the killing of Hamas leader Ismael Haniyeh in Tehran, which Iran attributed to Israel.
Hamas killed 1,206 people in its unprecedented attack on Israel on October 7th around a year ago. Since then, Israel has been taking military action in the Gaza Strip. According to unverified information from Hamas, more than 42,800 people were killed.
Video: ORF correspondent David Kriegleder reports live from Tel Aviv. He talks about how Iran is reacting to Israel’s retaliatory attack and the current situation on the ground.
Even before the Israeli attack, US President Joe Biden had appealed to Israel not to attack oil infrastructure. US presidential candidate Donald Trump, on the other hand, suggested that Israel attack Iranian nuclear facilities.
According to information from US defense circles, the USA was informed of the air attack in advance. However, they were not involved, it was said.
“We understand that Israel’s targeted strikes against military targets in Iran are self-defense and a response to Iran’s October 1 missile attack against Israel,” said Sean Savett, spokesman for the National Security Council. He called on Iran to stop its attacks on Israel “so that the cycle of violence can now end without further escalation.”
Interview with Dr. Sara Nabavi, Middle East Analyst
Interviewer: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Nabavi. We’ve just seen reports of Israeli airstrikes on Iranian military targets that resulted in the deaths of two Iranian army personnel. Can you help us understand the context behind these attacks?
Dr. Nabavi: Certainly. The Israeli airstrikes are part of an ongoing cycle of retaliation between Israel and Iran. In this instance, the strikes were reportedly a response to an Iranian missile attack that took place on October 1st. Israel’s action, targeting missile production facilities and air defense systems in Iran, was intended to disrupt Iran’s capabilities to control its airspace and threaten Israel.
Interviewer: What specific locations were targeted during the recent Israeli strikes?
Dr. Nabavi: The Israeli Defense Forces disclosed that they targeted missile production facilities, anti-aircraft missile sites, and other critical air defense infrastructures. This is significant as these sites are critical for Iran’s ability to protect itself against aerial assaults and to project power in the region.
Interviewer: What has been the impact of these airstrikes, both militarily and in terms of civilian life?
Dr. Nabavi: From the reports, Iranian authorities have indicated that the damage was limited and no significant damage occurred to key facilities, such as those related to nuclear or oil production. However, the temporary closure of Iranian airspace illustrates heightened tensions, as it affects both military and civil aviation. The air traffic resumed soon after, which indicates a quick recovery, but the psychological impact of such attacks cannot be understated.
Interviewer: Given these developments, what might be the potential repercussions moving forward?
Dr. Nabavi: The situation remains tense. There’s a chance we could see increased military posturing from both sides. Iran’s leadership may feel compelled to respond more aggressively to strengthen domestic support and deter future attacks. On the other hand, Israel may continue its campaign of targeted strikes to neutralize perceived threats. This back-and-forth escalation could lead to broader instability in the region.
Interviewer: In your opinion, how does this cycle of violence affect diplomatic efforts in the Middle East?
Dr. Nabavi: Unfortunately, it complicates the already delicate diplomatic landscape. Each attack reinforces distrust and raises the stakes for any negotiations. Regional players and international stakeholders must navigate this situation carefully, as provoking either side could lead to widespread repercussions beyond their immediate conflict.
Interviewer: Thank you, Dr. Nabavi, for shedding light on this critical situation. We appreciate your insight.
Dr. Nabavi: Thank you for having me. It’s important to stay informed about these developments, given their far-reaching implications.
The temporary closure of Iranian airspace highlights the tensions and the potential for broader escalation. While the immediate military impact seems limited, there is always the risk that such strikes could provoke further retaliation from Iran, potentially leading to an ongoing cycle of violence impacting civilian life in the region.
Interviewer: Given this recent series of events, what do you envision for the future of Iranian-Israeli relations?
Dr. Nabavi: The relationship between Iran and Israel has been marked by hostility and suspicion for decades. With the current situation, we are likely to see increased military readiness on both sides. Each attack and retaliatory response hardens positions and makes diplomatic resolutions increasingly difficult. The potential for miscalculation exists, which could lead to a wider conflict that draws in other regional powers or even external actors like the United States.
Interviewer: In light of President Biden’s appeal to Israel regarding oil infrastructure, what role do you see the United States playing in this conflict?
Dr. Nabavi: The U.S. has historically played a significant role in Middle Eastern geopolitics. Biden’s message indicates a desire to prevent further escalation, particularly around critical infrastructure that could affect global oil markets. While the U.S. is not directly involved in these attacks, its influence can be seen in attempts to mediate and encourage de-escalation. However, domestic political pressures within the U.S. and the responses of regional actors will continue to shape America’s role.
Interviewer: Thank you, Dr. Nabavi, for your insights into this complex situation. It’s clear that the future remains uncertain and fraught with challenges.
Dr. Nabavi: Thank you for having me. It’s imperative that we continue to monitor these developments closely, as the implications extend far beyond the immediate conflict.
