Iran-Israel Conflict: Retaliation and Risk of Further Escalation

In a dramatic development, Iran launched a direct attack against Israel April 14 in response to the suspected Israeli bombing of the consular affairs section of the Iranian Embassy in Damascus April 1. Iran’s response was surprising: Despite Israel’s systemic attacks against Iranian and allied positions in Syria since 2011, sabotage against Iran’s industrial base, and even assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force officers, Iran had practiced “strategic patience” and declined to directly attack Israel. This policy served the purpose of denying Israel a pretext to further escalate attacks and perhaps draw the United States into a war with Iran, for which Tehran is not prepared. Iran’s April 14 response is not necessarily a departure from this approach, however, as the attack appeared to be limited and did not cause any deaths. Israel may have an interest in further escalation in the hope of securing U.S. support in a war with Iran, but the United States’ approach going forward may ease or escalate tensions in a region already mired in conflict.

• April 14: IRGC mouthpiece Mashregh News published a statement from the IRGC: “In response to the multiple crimes of the evil Zionist regime, including the attack against the consular affairs section of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Damascus and martyrdom of commanders and military advisors of Iran … brave men of the Revolutionary Guard Air and Space Force, along with other members of this revolutionary and popular institution, successfully targeted locations in the occupied territories with tens of missiles and drones as a part of the punishment of the illegitimate and criminal regime.”
• April 14: Mashregh News released footage of a limited number of people celebrating Iran’s retaliatory attack in the early morning hours.
• April 14: Mashregh News, quoting a letter by Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Amir Saeed Iravani, wrote: “Should the Israeli regime take any military action, Iran’s response will be harder and with greater resolve.”
• April 14: In a second statement published by Mashregh News, the IRGC issued a warning to the United States and regional states:
  • “Let the terrorist government of America know that any support or participation in attacks against Iranian interests will be met with the hard response of the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran … The United States has a history of complicity in the mischief of the Zionist regime. Should it fail to contain the infanticidal Zionist regime’s activities in the region, America must accept the consequences.”
  • “Despite emphasizing the policy of good neighborly relations with neighbors and other countries of the region, any threat from the terrorist government of America and the Zionist regime from their soil will be met with an appropriate response from the Islamic Republic of Iran against the source of the threat.”
• April 14: Major General Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, said, as quoted by centrist Khabar Online: “From our viewpoint, the operation against Israel has ended … Should Israel respond, our reaction will be fiercer.”
• April 15: Kayhan newspaper, which is at times perceived as a mouthpiece of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, celebrated Iran’s retaliation against Israel with the headline: “Iran Opened the Gates of Hell to Israel.”
• April 15: IRGC mouthpiece Javan newspaper praised the retaliatory attack under the headline: “Historic Punishment.”
• April 15: Reformist Etemad Daily hailed the attack under the headline “Heavenly Punishment of Israel.”
• April 15: Amir Nikrouyan, a columnist at reformist Shargh Daily, assured readers that a war between Iran and Israel “is not coming” because it is “not in the interest of anyone” and Iran’s targeting of Israel was “a legitimate response.”
• April 15: Shargh quoted Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian’s claim that prior to launching the attack against Israel, Iran “warned the White House that our operation is limited.”

The views represented herein are the author's or speaker's own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AGSI, its staff, or its board of directors.