On Saturday, April 13th, at 8:00 PM GMT, Israel was subjected to five solid hours of
unprecedented all-out aerial assault from Iranian forces. A barrage of over 120 ballistic missiles,
170 drones, and 30 cruise missiles were aimed at everywhere from Jerusalem to Tel
Aviv. Air raid sirens blasted in 720 locations across the nation. Iran dubbed it “Operation
True Promise,” their first-ever direct attack against their long-held rival. It’s an attack
that left the international community on edge as they await Iran’s next move.
And yet, despite the intensity of the attack, when the smoke cleared,
Israeli air base Nevatim experienced only minor structural damage, and one of the
only casualties was an injured seven-year-old girl. It doesn’t make sense. How could Israel
come out so relatively unscathed in the face of a seemingly devastating surprise attack?
The answer lies in the actions of their allies,
chief among them being the United States of America. But how did the United States
fend off this attack and plan to fend off others? Why did Iran stage this attack in
the first place? And what could this mean for the Middle East and the world at large?
Right now, the historically unstable region has become more of a powder keg than it’s
ever been before. As Russia’s goals of European expansion are held back only
by a bloody conflict in Ukraine, China eyes Taiwan for invasion, and the violence in Gaza
seems to put Israel and Iran - both heavily armed power players in the Middle East - on
a potentially disastrous collision course, where US geopolitical and military interests
are intimately involved. It seems like, at any moment, the entire world could erupt into war.
But most actions often end up just being reactions. Before we get into
how the United States intervened on April 13th, we need to cast our eyes back to
earlier in the month. On April 1st, 2024, the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, Syria,
received a particularly brutal April Fools surprise: A six-missile air strike deployed
by an alleged strike force of Israeli F-35 warplanes, which destroyed the Iranian
consulate annex building. While Israel has never officially claimed responsibility for the attack,
The Guardian and The New York Times both reported that anonymous sources within the
Israeli government confirmed that the nation was responsible for the attack.
These assumptions hardly come out of thin air, especially when you’re aware of the key context
behind these back-and-forth attacks. While the violent conflict in Gaza between Israeli
and Palestinian forces has only been raging in its elevated state since October 7, 2023,
Iran and Israel have been locked in a proxy war since the Iranian revolution of 1979,
as Iran has been angling for dominance over the region through funding various
militia and insurgent groups - Including Hamas, Hezbollah,
and the Houthis, all of which have played prominent roles in the recent conflict.
Iran essentially views Israel as little more than a US puppet, a vector for the Americans to
exert geopolitical influence over surrounding nations without getting its hands dirty. By
undermining Israel and forcing it to fight in a multi-front war with these various groups,
Iran hopes to eventually shatter the nation’s foothold. However, until now, this is all the
conflict has been: A proxy war. What we’re seeing with these attacks is a concerning transformation
that puts two Middle Eastern titans in a conflict more direct than we’ve ever seen before.
It’s widely believed that the primary target of the attack was Brigadier General Mohammad
Reza Zahedi, a critical figure for maintaining the connection between
Iran and groups like Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It’s
even been confirmed by sources within the Iranian Revolutionary Guards that
the attack happened during a meeting between Zahedi and the PIJ regarding the war in Gaza.
If Zahedi was the intended target of the attack, then it was, by all accounts,
a success - Zahedi was killed along with fifteen others. Seven Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,
five Iran-backed militiamen, a Hezbollah fighter, an Iranian advisor, and, tragically,
two civilians. The attack caused a global uproar, drawing criticism from the United
Nations Security Council, as well as accusations that Israel violated the
1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,
and Article 2 of the United Nations Charter by staging an attack against a diplomatic building.
Peter Beaumont and Emma Graham-Harrison of The Guardian also criticized the attack as an
extremely risky act of escalation, suggesting that Israel had, quote, “bulldozed through every red
line to attack a location that Tehran maintains was tantamount to attacking Iranian soil.”
However, none were more enraged than Iran and Syria themselves,
along with their associated groups. Iran was particularly galled,
given that Zahedi was their most high-ranking military official to be assassinated since the
US strike that killed General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020. In the aftermath of the attack,
Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, chaired by President Ebrahim Raisi,
convened to discuss and plan appropriate reprisals. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei said of the matter, “We will make them regretful about the crime and similar acts.”
As the situation seemed to spiral rapidly out of control, U.S. Deputy Ambassador to
the United Nations, Robert Wood, urged a calm and measured approach from Iran and its allied groups
- Including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Any hopes that Wood’s diplomacy would de-escalate the
situation were destroyed when representatives of Hezbollah released the statement,
“This crime will certainly not pass without the enemy receiving punishment and revenge.”
As you’ve probably already guessed, these words would prove prophetic
for the incident that would unfold two weeks later. Hossein Akbari,
Iran’s ambassador to Syria, only further escalated the war of words with the comment,
“(Israel) will definitely get a response to this crime at the right time and the right situation.”
And April 13th seemed to be the time and situation in question. A volley of
missiles was launched from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon
towards a number of targets, including the previously mentioned Nevatim air
base - which was alleged to be the base where the Damascus consulate strike was launched from.
This is where Israel’s allies came in: The United Kingdom, France, Jordan - who shot
down missiles that passed through Jordanian airspace - and, of course, The United States.
So, returning to our central question:
How did the US actually play such a key role in defending Israel from the Iranian
sneak attack? It has everything to do with the assets it has stationed in the region.
Two US Navy Destroyers, the USS Carney and USS Arleigh Burke, were stationed in the
Mediterranean Sea, where they were able to intercept and destroy at least six of the
Iranian missiles. The Carney had already earned its stripes in the last few months
as it fended off attacks from Houthi rocket launchers and explosive drones in the Red Sea,
so it was already prepared for a sneak attack like this. However, it wasn’t the
only seaborne asset that was vital in helping the US intercept the hundreds of Iranian missiles.
The Air Force’s 494th and 355th fighter squadrons also pulled their weight,
according to the White House, achieving dozens of death-defying aerial takedowns. A Patriot missile
defense battery based in Erbil, Iraq, also came into play, intercepting and destroying a number
of the Iranian weapons. According to retired Gen. Frank McKenzie, the former head of U.S.
Central Command, this is considered by many to be a devastating loss for Iran - the missiles
expended in the attack were a not-insignificant portion of Iran’s 3000-missile stockpile.
Also, according to McKenzie, the US utilizes satellite tracking to keep
tabs on Iran’s stockpile and to provide an early warning system for potential
launches. Hence why the attack was able to be intercepted and destroyed without incident.
After the dust settled, US President Joe Biden released a statement saying:
“At my direction, to support the defense of Israel, the U.S. military moved aircraft and
ballistic missile defense destroyers to the region over the course of the past
week. Thanks to these deployments and the extraordinary skill of our servicemembers,
we helped Israel take down nearly all of the incoming drones and missiles.”
However, while averting the loss of life is always a victory, the attack has left an aftermath of
chaos in the Middle East. Inside Israel, political tensions have heightened as Israel’s opposition
leader, Yair Lapid, has accused current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of weakening the
country’s deterrence policy - long thought to be a key pillar in the nation’s defense. While the
attack has left the embattled Prime Minister with a temporary popularity polling bump domestically,
there’s no denying that the attack is evidence of deterrence falling short.
Commentator Ben Caspit, echoed the thoughts of Israeli domestic critics, “The Iranians have lost
their sense of fear. No more proxies, undercover agents, and covert terror attacks. From now on,
it is Iran against Israel, out in the open. Israeli deterrence, which got Iran to swallow
its pride every time anew and not to attack Israel directly, has now been shattered.”
This would be bad enough on its own, but some commentators have also observed the
dark side of the loose coalition of allies that came to defend Israel during the Iranian
attack. It’s raised a disturbing question for Israel: Can they still rely on themselves for
defense in the absence of allies like the United Kingdom, France, Jordan, and the United States?
Obviously, this puts Israel in a position that isn’t advantageous for anyone: If they want to
reaffirm the power of their deterrence policies, they’d need to strike back against Iran with
sufficient force to make an example of them for daring to cross the line. Elements of Netanyahu’s
inner circle were already gunning for this, such as Israel’s far-right National Security Minister
Itamar Ben Gvir, who had allegedly encouraged the Israeli War Cabinet to, quote, “go crazy”
in response to Iran’s attack. Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, the spokesman for Israel’s military,
also responded, “We cannot stand still [in the face of] this kind of aggression.”
The assembled War Cabinet proposed a series of response options,
as well as the potential major drawbacks of each one.
The first was conducting a strike against an Iranian-allied target like Iraq or Lebanon,
which came with the drawback of seeming, to the members of the War Cabinet, under-proportioned to
Iran’s direct attack on Israel. The second option was a strike against a symbolic target in Iran,
which carried the drawback of potentially souring relations with the conflict-averse United States.
The third option was to conduct a cyberattack on Iran’s infrastructure, but this was also
deemed as not a proportional response and may have also come with the additional downside of
showing Israel’s hand too early when it comes to its cyber capabilities. The fourth option
was to increase the number of Iran-targeted assassinations performed by Mossad, Israel’s
security service, but Israel wouldn’t directly claim responsibility for these assassinations,
losing the propagandistic element of a response to Iran’s attack.
One thing seemed unanimously clear: Israel couldn’t just turn the other cheek on this.
This is, understandably, where allies on both sides of this conflict started to get nervous.
The analyst and journalist Daoub Kuttab commented that the conflict between Israel and Iran “has
left the rest of the Arab world terrified of what another regional war could do to an
already devastated region. And if it is to take place, there will be not just regional but global
repercussions. Any regional Iranian-Israeli conflict will pull in the Gulf countries but
also the US, Russia, and China, creating a potentially explosive global confrontation.”
Kuttab is far from the only one who believes this conflict
could boil over with catastrophic consequences.
While the United States was more than happy to defend Israel from attack,
they drew the line at getting involved in any kind of proactive conflict. US Secretary
of State Antony Blinken called Benny Gantz, an Israeli minister and member of the War Cabinet,
to stress the fact that - while the US would not tell Israel what to do, personally - heightened
tensions with Iran wouldn’t benefit anyone. President Biden also advised Israel to take
the win of thwarting the Iranian attack rather than potentially incurring further reprisals.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, “We condemn these reckless and unprecedented attacks by
Iran and its proxies, and we call on Iran to immediately halt any further attacks, including
from its proxy forces, and to de-escalate tensions. We do not seek conflict with Iran,
but we will not hesitate to act to protect our forces and support the defense of Israel.”
The tone of de-escalation rippled across the other allies involved in defending Israel
from the attack: British Foreign Secretary David Cameron told the BBC that the official position
of the UK was against a retaliatory strike from Israel on Iran, and France’s President,
Emmanuel Macron, said that he would encourage Israel not to escalate the conflict. Japan and
Australia also stepped in to encourage Israel not to conduct any further attacks, while Russian and
Chinese government officials urged Iran to proceed with caution in its next actions.
Even President Vladimir Putin, who typically loves violence in the way that fish love water,
“expressed hope that all sides would show reasonable restraint and prevent
a new round of confrontation fraught with catastrophic consequences for the
entire region” during a call with President Raisi.
A joint statement from a G7 leader emergency meeting read,
“We demand that Iran and its proxies cease their attacks, and we stand ready to take
further measures now and in response to further destabilizing initiatives.”
There was good reason for international concern about a sudden spike in conflict. After Israel
declared that it would retaliate, President Raisi of Iran warned that a swift Iranian
response would be inevitable, one that, he claimed, would leave little left of the
Israeli regime. These threats didn’t seem to be entirely hot air, either, as Iran announced its
intentions to deploy warships into the Red Sea to protect Iranian shipping interests.
However, if you read between the lines here - and you really don’t have to read
all that closely - you can see that this is clear saber-rattling from the Iranians.
One thing is absolutely clear, even through the fog of war: This isn’t over. As of the making
of this video, one of the latest countermoves was a strike on April 19th, where the sounds of
explosions and anti-aircraft fire were reported in the Iranian central province of Isfahan, the site
of the major Shikari airbase and several key sites involved in Iran’s highly controversial nuclear
program. The US has staunchly denied involvement in the attack, but Israel hasn’t made any official
comment, hinting at its likely involvement through omission, just like the Damascus Consulate attack.
Unlike the Damascus attack, however, there were no reported casualties this
time. Iran has been surprisingly casual about the whole affair,
claiming that it was little more than a failed attack by two quadcopters. However, while the
attack was hardly a severe response, this is still likely power posturing on Iran’s part,
as satellite imagery has illuminated some of the broader details of the likely Israeli attack.
According to the BBC and CBS, thanks to the use of optical imaging photos - think the kinds of things
you see while killing time on Google Earth - and Synthetic Aperture Radar satellite imagery - which
uses satellite-based radio waves to map the surface of the Earth - we can see that some
minor damage was caused to the Iranian air base. The base featured an S-300 air defense system,
composed mainly of vehicles equipped with radars and missile equipment, that in before and after
photos, was shown to have been damaged by the Israeli strike. According to both Iran and the
UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, none of the nuclear facilities were harmed in the strike,
and Iran has not shared any intentions to respond or escalate despite their earlier threats.
So, why this attack? What would Israel have to gain from this specific course of action?
Most foreign policy experts agree that this attack was an Israeli half-measure,
simultaneously intended to send a message to Iran while also appeasing their international
allies’ desires to stave off further conflict escalation. This is also crucial as Isfahan has
often been called “the cradle of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.” While Iran has always said that
its nuclear development has always been to the end of peaceful nuclear power, various members
of the international community have cast doubt on this. Clearly, Israel is trying to communicate to
Iran that its nuclear production facilities are not out of reach should the war escalate.
Another attack that’s believed to be a response to Iran’s April 13th
assault occurred in Iraq on April 20th. Believed to have been committed by Israel,
in line with the first option presented by the War Cabinet, the attack struck a Kalso military
base located 30 miles (50 km) outside of Baghdad, killing one and wounding eight others. The attack
was aimed at striking the Popular Mobilisation Forces, or PMF, a militia that acts as another
of Iran’s many proxies. It’s likely that this group was also tangentially involved
in the Iraqi portions of the April 13th attack, putting them squarely in Israel’s crosshairs.
The United States has, once again, denied any involvement in the attack, leaving Israel as
the most likely culprit. Many have wondered why Iran’s response has been so muted so far,
especially given that an escalation in conflict is seemingly in line with their larger plans.
The answer may lay in the opinions of Saudi Arabia, as Saudi Arabia’s Ministry
of Foreign Affairs urged for de-escalation in the aftermath of Iran’s initial attack.
While also being an ally to the United States - though admittedly, one with rather large
caveats when you take a magnifying glass to the fine print - Tehran has spent the last several
years cozying up with the Saudis. Though the outbreak of war in Gaza delayed the proceedings,
talks brokered by China in 2023 solidified peace between the former rival nations,
a highly advantageous deal for both parties when it comes to solidifying power in the
region. Given that President Raisi has made brokering deals like this with Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates a major part of his policy platform,
it’s likely that the sudden de-escalation was, in part, a plan to appease their newest allies.
So far, we’ve gotten lucky that this situation hasn’t escalated
into a region-wide war. All it would take is a single domino to fall and plunge the
entire world into chaos. Let’s hope that this domino doesn’t fall anytime soon.
Now check out “What Would Happen If USA and
Iran Went to War? (Military / Army Comparison)” Or watch this instead!