Iran’s official line on exchange with Israel: Deterrence restored

The horn of official triumphalism still sounds unabated in Iran, nearly three weeks after the Islamic Republic launched an unprecedented barrage, from Iranian soil, of more than 300 missiles and drones at Israel.

Yet triumphalism aside, Iran’s interpretation of events is key to understanding how it plans to capitalize on its recalibrated strategic position, and that of its regional “Axis of Resistance” alliance, including the embrace of a more overt deterrent ability, analysts say.

Never mind that only a handful of the missiles detonated in Israel – after Iran telegraphed its plans and desire not to escalate further. Or that critics inside Iran, who were quickly hushed by judicial action, derided the strikes, in one case calling them “theatrical” and saying they “only further fueled worries about Iran’s true defense power.”

Iranian officials nevertheless say they avenged an April 1 Israeli attack on an Iranian consulate building in Damascus, Syria, that killed several top Revolutionary Guard generals.

The officials said their strike, billed as Operation True Promise, demonstrated a flavor of their capabilities.

The barrage “left all the enemies bewildered about Iran’s deterrent power,” Maj. Gen. Abdolrahim Mousavi, commander of the Iranian army, said last week. “If need be, the Islamic Republic would hit any target in the world, any place it sees fit.”

In reply, Israel, under pressure from the United States not to escalate, launched a single strike deep inside Iran that reportedly evaded Iranian air defenses and destroyed an S-300 air defense system in Isfahan – a city home to a key Iranian nuclear facility.

Iran says its “epic victory” against Israel and Israel’s muted response have created a “new calculus” for its adversaries, after finally bringing a yearslong shadow war between Iran and Israel into the open.

Still, Iran’s priorities will include continuing to avoid an all-out war with Israel and the U.S., which could jeopardize regime stability or neuter allied regional militias, analysts say. But they will now also include forging a new level of deterrence with its archfoes, as the long-held “rules of the game” continue to fluctuate since the Israel-Hamas war erupted last October.

“Strong signal to the Israelis”

“This attack had the purpose of Iran breaking out of previously known behavioral patterns, such as hiding behind plausible deniability, or keeping operations against Israel ambiguous,” says Adnan Tabatabai, an Iran expert and founder of the Center for Applied Research and Partnership with the Orient, in Bonn, Germany.

With Israel in recent years stepping up targeting of Iranian military assets and personnel from Syria to Lebanon and Iraq – especially since last October – Tehran felt compelled to change the deterrence equation with Israel and “do something new, something unprecedented,” says Mr. Tabatabai, who travels frequently to Iran.

At the same time, he says, Iran deliberately sought to “do no serious harm,” and informed the U.S. “through two or three channels” what it would do, aware that most of its barrage would be intercepted.

The result, says Mr. Tabatabai, is that Iran, “in its own take of that back and forth between Israel and Iran, can say, ‘We gave a very strong signal to the Israelis about our capabilities and strong will to do something new – and a warning that next time we won’t warn you, may use even more missiles and drones, and may use [more advanced] systems that may not be intercepted so smoothly.’”

So Iran’s barrage – coupled with Israel’s subdued response, which was panned by one Iranian newspaper as “the clown’s performance” – “makes for a full victory speech for Iran, in terms of its own constituents,” says Mr. Tabatabai.

Senior officials have described the attack as a “limited warning” to Israel, to explain its apparent failure to produce widespread damage.

Indeed, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei praised the “achievements” of the armed forces, but also said the “number of missiles fired and how many actually made it to their targets is trivial and of secondary value” because the attack “infuriated the other side.”

Altering assumptions

While the scale of Iran’s strike and the fact that it was launched from Iranian soil surprised many analysts – including, reportedly, Israeli officials – expectations had been building in Tehran to counter what was seen as increasingly brazen Israeli action.

“While not as many of their missiles got through, Iran did send a message and perhaps did force Israel and the U.S. to alter their assumptions and calculations,” says Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the Chatham House think tank in London.

“That in itself is important for [Iran’s] longer game and their broader strategic objectives,” says Dr. Vakil. “I think they were trying to force Israel to think twice, in order to stop the hemorrhaging around the region of their individuals and of their position.”

Iran may see as positive its accurate reading of the Biden administration’s lack of desire for the Israel-Hamas war to expand any further into a regional war, says Dr. Vakil.

“But they haven’t been able to fully deter or anticipate what Israel is going to do next, and I think they are calculating that they have a longer-term challenge on the horizon, with Hezbollah,” she says, noting that preservation of the Lebanese Shiite militia as a threat to Israel is critical to Iran’s own defense strategy.

“Ideally for Iran this [conflict] returns to the gray zone, and they can return to the status quo ante,” of applying pressure to Israel through proxy forces, says Dr. Vakil. “I don’t think they know if Israel is comfortable with that.”

Some in the Israeli government, in fact, are pushing for Israel to now tackle Iran-backed Hezbollah, which is far more capable than Hamas – with its arsenal estimated to include more than 150,000 rockets and missiles – and has engaged in increasing exchanges of fire on Israel’s northern border.

Yet according to the official narrative from Tehran, Israel would not dare to take on Hezbollah now.

Clampdown on critics

Meanwhile, Iranians who have raised questions about the cost and consequence of Iran’s barrage against Israel have been targeted by Revolutionary Guard social media channels, which have appealed to users to snitch on critics.

One high-profile example is Hossein Dehbashi, a well-known filmmaker, historian, and former journalist who posted praise of Iran’s change in strategy from “sitting back and tolerance, to one of direct retaliation.” But he also criticized the attack as “theatrical ... inefficient and unsuccessful.”

The next day he was summoned by Iran’s judiciary for “disturbing public psychological peace,” and a legal case was opened against him.

Such a clampdown may not be a surprise in a country that frequently limits reporting on dissent and protests.

“It’s something we have to expect in an environment that’s a war ... so there is no room for alternative narratives,” says Mr. Tabatabai. “Of course, the establishment is doing all it can to make sure the prerogative of interpretation remains uncontested in their hands.”

An Iranian researcher contributed to reporting for this story.