Media Guide: Iran-Israel Relations (July 2024)
/By AIC Senior Research Fellow Andrew Lumsden
The nearly two years since AIC’s Media Guide on Iran-Israel relations have seen the long-simmering conflict between the two Middle East powers escalate to dramatic and unprecedented proportions.
The trigger for the Middle East’s newest round of violence was the brutal attack on Israel by the Gaza-based Palestinian militant organization Hamas on October 7, 2023. Over 1,100 Israelis were killed in the attacks, with more than 800 having been civilians. Moreover, Hamas took some 250 Israeli hostages.
In response, Israel declared war on Hamas and launched major military operations in the Gaza Strip with the stated goal of destroying the group. Nearly a year later, the war continues with little sign of abatement. So far, over 30,000 Palestinians are estimated to have been killed.
The war has had regional implications as well. Hamas is a longtime ally of Iran, which supplies the group with funding and weaponry. Since 10/7, Israel has come under attack by other militant groups allied with Iran including Hezbollah, based in Lebanon and the Houthi movement in Yemen. For its part, there have been calls among Israeli officials for Iranian targets to be attacked directly.
Damascus Consulate Bombing
On April 1, 2024, an airstrike destroyed the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, killing 16 people including seven officers of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Among the dead was Brigadier General Muhammad Reza Zahedi, commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force in Syria and Lebanon. Zahedi was the most senior Iranian military commander to be assassinated since 2020 when a U.S. airstrike killed Major General Qassem Soleimani, the Quds Force’s overall commander.
Iran blamed Israel for the bombing and vowed retaliation. Under international law, diplomatic buildings are considered “inviolable” and under the sovereignty of the countries they represent. Attacks on embassies therefore are considered attacks on the countries that own them.
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) did not confirm their involvement but asserted that Iran’s Damascus consulate was “a military building of Quds forces disguised as a civilian building.” The New York Times, citing anonymous officials from the U.S., Israel and other Middle Eastern countries, reports that the operation was planned and executed by Israel with authorization from the country’s war cabinet. While this reporting cannot be independently verified, Israel has not denied responsibility and it is known to have carried out more than 200 strikes in Syria since 2013, primarily targeting Iranian weapons caches and militias allied with Iran.
“True Promise”
In response to the consulate bombing, Iran launched “Operation True Promise,” on April 13, firing over 300 drones and ballistic missiles at Israel. This marks the first time Iran’s official armed forces have attacked the Jewish state directly from Iranian territory. Reportedly, all but 75 of the projectiles were intercepted before reaching Israeli territory by fighter aircraft from Israel, the United States, United Kingdom, Jordan, and France. Of the 75, Israel reports that nearly all were intercepted by Israeli air defense systems, with only minimal damage to an airbase and one serious injury.
Iran however disputes this. An IRGC spokesman denounced the reports as “nothing more than a psychological operation,” and claimed that “a significant percentage of the weapons fired were successful.” Nevertheless, in a statement by its mission to the United Nations, Iran said that since Tehan has retaliated, it considers the conflict related to the embassy bombing to be “concluded.”
Iran also warned that additional Israeli attacks would result in a more forceful retaliation.
Isfahan
The New York Times reports that the Israeli military had plans in place to carry out large-scale retaliatory attacks on targets across Iran. Moreover, there reportedly was significant support in Israel’s war cabinet, including among opposition members, for immediate Israeli retaliation. Tempers cooled however, after U.S. President Joe Biden expressed disapproval of further Israeli action.
Israel is believed to have carried out a small-scale strike on a military facility near the Iranian city of Isfahan on April 19. However, Iran, Israel and the U.S. have all downplayed the impact and significance of the event.
Future Outlook
The apparent de-escalation of direct Iran-Israel conflict is a welcome development. However ample causes for alarm remain. It stands to reason, in light of recent events, that a line has been crossed behind which it may not be possible to return.
After decades of indirect conflict, both Israel and Iran have demonstrated an unprecedented willingness to attack each other directly. Since the bombing of Iran’s Damascus embassy and Operation True Promise, key officials on both sides have expressed some desire for their country to assume a more aggressive approach.
In Israel, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir demanded that Israel “go crazy” and launch “crushing” counterattacks of Iran. He added that “restraint and proportionality” are concepts that “passed away” after the 10/7 attacks.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that Israel must “restore deterrence” and issue a “response” which “resonates throughout the Middle East for generations to come.” Failure to do so, he argued, would “put ourselves and our children in immediate existential danger.”
Foreign Minister Israel Katz said that Israel’s approach to attacks from Iran is to “respond in Iran.”
For their part, many Iranian officials have, in addition to praising Operation True Promise as a major victory for their country, cited the intervention of other powers as an indication of Israeli vulnerability to more forceful Iranian actions.
Iran’s acting Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri Kani said that “Operation True Promise showed that the Zionist regime’s deterrence is fake” and that Tehran would now “powerfully and vigilantly use its might to contain [Israel].”
Brigadier-General Abdolfattah Ahvazian, advisor to the Commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force said that the Iranian attack showed Israel’s defenses to be “nothing more than a lie.” The commander of Iran’s Navy, Shahram Irani, said that Operation True Promise has “changed the regional power balance.”
Some officials have gone further, criticizing internal calls for restraint and diplomacy. Sardar Ramzan Sharif, spokesman for the IRGC said that Israel has “become weaker” over the past 45 years and decried opponents of direct confrontation with Israel as “trying to belittle the country's assets and capabilities” and “make the enemy look big.”
Mahmoud Nabavian, a conservative member of Iran’s Parliament argued that under moderate leaders like former President Hassan Rouhani and former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran had a “retreat and surrender approach” to dealing with Israel and the West. He praised Operation True Promise as an example of a superior policy of “rationality and resistance.”
Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh
Calls for more attacks against Israel have only intensified since the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31. Haniyeh was in Iran to attend the inauguration of President Masoud Pezeshkian and was killed in an explosion at his Tehran residence.
Iran says the blast was caused by a projectile. However, The New York Times, citing unnamed “officials” from the U.S. and unspecified Middle Eastern countries, reports that it was actually a bomb smuggled into Haniyeh’s residence months earlier.
Iran accuses Israel of perpetrating the attack, with the IRGC releasing a statement asserting it was “designed and implemented by the Zionist regime.” Israel has not publicly claimed responsibility. However, The New York Times reports that Israeli intelligence briefed U.S. and other Western officials on the details of the assassination in the immediate aftermath.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a statement saying that “the criminal, terrorist Zionist regime martyred our dear guest in our territory and has caused our grief.” He then vowed that Israel will face “a severe punishment” and it was Tehran’s “duty to take revenge.” There are expectations of a retaliatory attack on Israel, however none has taken place so far.
Conclusion
Today, there is a very real danger that the prospect of direct armed conflict may have become more palatable to leaders in both countries. Moreover, if media reports are accurate that only opposition from President Joe Biden prevented a more extensive Israeli counterattack on Iran back in April, then it begs the question of what may happen should a differently minded administration take office in Washington.
It is important that both sides avoid underestimating the severity of the devastation armed conflict would bring to both countries.
Iranian leaders must remember that Iran very much remains at a considerable military disadvantage vis-a-vis Israel. Israel possesses superior military technology, nuclear weapons and the support of powerful allies who may intervene in the event of armed conflict.
For Israel’s leaders, it is important to remember that it too has vulnerabilities, as 10/7 made abundantly clear. Israel’s air defenses cannot prevent all attacks, as an IDF spokesman told German media in April, in the event of attacks, “some [projectiles] will always penetrate the defense shield.”
Also, war with Iran most likely means that in addition to the war in Gaza, Israel would face hostilities on multiple fronts including the Lebanese and possibly Syrian borders, as well as attacks from pro-Iranian militant groups based in Iraq and Yemen. Furthermore, the support Israel received during Iran’s missile attack does not necessarily mean that its allies would be willing to commit to a major conflict.
