By Batool Subeiti, political analyst
The most important aspect of Iran’s retaliatory strike against the Israeli occupation entity on April 13th is the establishment of a new deterrence equation: If Iranian territory is attacked, the response will be inevitable and rapid.
The era whereby the entity can hit Iranian figures or attack Iran maliciously without facing direct consequences is gone. Iran proved through this attack that it has the will, morale, ability and decision to execute what it says. The Israeli occupation entity was not expecting Iran to respond in this way; however, Iran has given its greatest enemy the excuse to enter the equation and act as a facilitating front to ending the war in Gaza; in a similar manner to how Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq have operated as a supporting front these past six months.
It is a credit for Iran that openly states the quantity and type of drones and missiles it was firing towards the entity, knowing well the US satellites were monitoring, with American ships and air defenses that were ready to down the flying objects. Iran was almost sending a challenge to its adversaries: down whatever you wish, we will still hit our targets with precisions. Indeed, the Nevatim air base from which Israeli planes launched the attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus and the Israeli intelligence headquarters in the Golan Heights, that conspired in the attack were both successful targets. The strikes were also a test of its enemy's capabilities, testing the extent and size of American intervention and its strategic positioning.
Iran’s strikes sent multiple messages in terms of deterrence and options, quantity, magnitude, and type of attack that it launched. Whilst Iranian missiles flew above political institutions, like the Knesset and above populated areas, it sent a message that it will not strike except the locations in which Israel targeted the consulate in a retaliatory manner. Iran proved that it is not like the Israeli occupation entity, it abides by international law in the event of war and does not target those who are considered civilians. In this way, Iran has not warranted an Israeli response and there is no excuse for expansion of the war. At the same, Iran sent a direct message, that is they can respond in a strong manner if their enemy is stupid enough to escalate. The occupation entity’s lack of direct response in mainland Iran is an indication that the entity is in big trouble facing the Islamic Republic.
Iran made it clear from the manner it responded that it seeks a limited operation, consolidating the deterrence factor that it wishes to impose. The limits of the Iranian response were that it ought not to be strong enough to invoke a regional war such that America feels the need to get involved, since the goal from Iran’s perspective is to halt the Israeli war on Gaza. Iran considers this the greater victory because the war would have ended with the Gazan resistance standing strong, and Israel not having achieved a single military strategic objective.
The Iranian response is based on the strategy that Gaza must remain the focal point. To turn it into a regional conflict is to give the Israeli occupation entity what it wants, as that would free its hand in Gaza, with the world distracted away from their mass genocide. This would also facilitate Israel’s only plan for Gaza: to create unbearable conditions and to get rid of Gaza altogether. The Iranian retaliatory strike has already created a much better ground and atmosphere for Palestinian negotiations and has strengthened their position.
According to a report by Bloomberg on April 15, Amos Yaldin, a former director of Israeli military intelligence, the Iranian attack may lead to a strategic change in “the war in Gaza and even its end.”
Israeli sources also told CNN on April 15 that Israel was set to take its first steps towards a ground offensive on the city of Rafah but delayed it after Iran launched a retaliatory attack on military and intelligence targets in Israel on April 13.
America is taking Iran very seriously, avoiding confrontation and applying pressure on the Israeli occupation entity to come to its terms. There is more desperation to end the war altogether, as its consequences are becoming uncontrollable. The occupation entity’s situation has become fragile, and this inevitably facilitates a ceasefire and an end to the war on Gaza.
The Iranian retaliatory response proved the extent the occupation entity is trembling and caught in a state of panic. If it was not for America’s mobilisation of all its forces in the region to detect Iranian drones and missiles to hit them, then the entity could not defend itself at all. America made it clear it would not participate in an attack against Iran and will only defend the occupation entity if Iran responded. Now, for America to protect the entity is only to prevent its collapse and disintegration, whilst working with it is only to advance the American vision and not that of the Israeli occupation entity.
The occupation entity has been unable to defeat a guerrilla force in nearly seven months, with Gaza considered the weakest link in the resistance axis, therefore the victory for the axis is now the beginning of the end of the entity. The occupation entity has failed in its task and has become a burden on the West; therefore its role will naturally shrink to match its true size as America seeks to push for a two-state solution in hopes of stabilizing its interests in the region and weakening the Gaza resistance in this way.
For the first time in 7.5 decades, due to the military operation of October 7, the Palestinian cause has become a priority in every nation’s agenda and in every election. Public opinion at this rate cannot be reversed and Western support for the Israeli entity will reduce with time, as America will need to find a substitute. The reality is that Biden is not defending the occupation entity, rather he is defending the imperialist project represented by the entity until he determines what it will settle on.
No comments:
Post a Comment