On April 13th, Iran responded to Israel’s bombardment of its consulate in Damascus on April 1st, in which seven senior Revolutionary Guard members, including two generals, lost their lives. Iran’s retaliation, launched from its territory, involved dozens of UAVs and cruise missiles. Even though the ordnance launched was impressive numerically speaking, almost all were intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome and allied air defence systems, resulting in no casualties.
Tehran’s advocates in the region highlight that this is the first time Iran has targeted Israel directly without resorting to its regional proxies. Irrespective of the impact of such a decision on Tehran’s modus operandi, this episode uncovered many winners and losers.
Two winners
The biggest winner of this move is Israel, especially Prime Minister Netanyahu. In recent weeks, Netanyahu has irritated many of his usual supporters in Western political circles. The Prime Minister used the opportunity presented by Iran’s retaliation to refresh the Western pledge to continue backing Israel militarily and politically.
Through this message to the US and key European countries, which have been unwaveringly supporting Israel since the beginning of the war, Netanyahu successfully deflected discussions about his political fate and his genocidal undertaking in Gaza, which drew harsh criticism from US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer last month.
Iran emerges as the other winner by salvaging its tarnished reputation in the eyes of its domestic public opinion and sympathisers across the Middle East. Had Iran not retaliated against Israel’s consulate attack or merely brushed it off with a few highly symbolic Hezbollah strikes in Northern Israel, its credibility would have been severely questioned, and its classical pretext of ‘avoiding regional escalation’ would not have worked. For Iran, this face-saving measure seemed to solve the problem. Moreover, Iran reiterated that its retaliation was in response to the consulate attack, referencing Article 51 of the UN Charter in its statement, thereby maintaining its commitment to avoid the war in Gaza, as promised to the U.S. in the weeks following October 7th. It, therefore, positioned this move outside the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict and emphasised that retaliation should be perceived as such.
Who lost?
The civilians who faced Israel’s genocidal undertaking in Gaza are on the losing side, as this episode shifted the world’s attention and redirected the role of villain to Iran.
Questions and speculations arise about potential Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and how Iran might respond to such attacks or how it will keep its regional weight on the ground alive through its proxies in Syria and Iraq. Such discussions move the spotlight from Gaza to another subject and risk reducing the Western media’s attention to and awareness of civilian casualties and various other war crimes. Tehran was, thus, played by Tel Aviv, providing the latter a much-needed escape in the war of narratives that Israel was losing. Furthermore, Israel, buoyed by the reassurance of Western pro-Israel bias, may feel unbounded to commit new war crimes.
An Inseparable Trio
While Iran’s retaliation may not have been a complete response to Israel’s consulate attack, it did earn a reputational advantage among sympathisers in the region, especially within the so-called Axis of Resistance. Tehran reinforced its image as an actor capable of directly striking Israel, a feat only accomplished by Saddam Hussein during the First Gulf War.
By the same token, Tehran’s emboldened status allows Israel to secure ongoing political and military support from the West, ensuring continued U.S. presence.
This tripartite liaison reveals much about regional geopolitics, highlighting how the inseparable trio, represented by the US, Iran, and Israel, are detrimental to the Palestinian cause.
Despite Iran’s claims that its retaliation was partially a response to the Israeli onslaught on Gaza, it played, in fact, into Israel’s desired narrative. Furthermore, this situation also provides pretexts for the US to maintain its military footprint in the region despite its withdrawal narrative, which is popular among many American constituencies.
Iran’s response is akin to a plot from a Western film, characterised by intricate manoeuvres. One actor conjures a sense of danger towards another without inflicting actual damage. Subsequently, the actor under perceived threat calls upon a third party to assume the role of the sheriff, offering protection and restoring balance.
Meanwhile, Tehran emerged with an enhanced reputation among its targeted audience in the region even when Iran’s objectives, communicated through its proxies, namely a U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East and an end to Israeli oppression against Palestine – remain unfulfilled.
In the Middle East, nothing is what it seems! What appears to the laymen as staunch enemies could be, in fact, a situation where these protagonists are aligned with their interests even if their declared goals appear conflicting.
This article originally appeared in the opinion section of the Anadolu Agency.