A Complex Game Between Iran and Israel

During the night of 13 to 14 April, Iran launched a large-scale attack, dubbed “Honest Promise”, on Israeli soil, primarily targeting the Nevatim airbase, where F-35 aircraft are stationed. The scale of the operation is unprecedented: over 300 missiles and drones were used; 99% were intercepted by Israel with the assistance of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Jordan. For the first time since the 1991 Gulf War, Israel has been subjected to a missile attack launched by a third state. Tehran’s unprecedented attack was triggered by the Israeli strike on its consulate in Damascus on 1 April. In turn, Israel’s presumed retaliation on 19 April, which directly struck Iranian soil, was both tactical and symbolic. Tel Aviv appears to have regained European and American solidarity and succeeded in diverting attention from the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. These major developments raise crucial questions about a possible reconfiguration of perceived threats and pave the way for a redefinition of relations between Iran and Israel.

The attacks of 1 and 13 April represent a significant turning point in relations between Tehran and Tel Aviv

For Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus on 1 April constitutes a violation of the 1961 Vienna Convention, which protects diplomatic premises and therefore, in his view, justifies invoking Article 51 of the United Nations Charter on the right of self-defence. Beyond considerations of international law, it is important to underline the near-mystical significance that Iranian territory holds for Tehran. The protection of the homeland is deeply tied to national ideology, making any attack on Iranian soil intolerable. The preservation of national interests takes precedence over any direct confrontation with other powers. From Tehran’s perspective, Israel crossed a red line by directly targeting its territory.

Iran’s attack on Israel also highlights the failure of deterrence. Although both countries possess significant military capabilities that had previously seemed to prevent direct confrontation, the equation has now fundamentally changed, ushering in a new era of uncertainty and heightened regional tensions.

Moreover, the timing of the Iranian attack is particularly significant, calling into question the traditionally patient strategic posture of Iranian military doctrine. In contrast to previous practices rooted in long-term strategy, Iran reacted swiftly to the attack on its consulate. This abrupt shift in posture seems to indicate a strategic evolution on Tehran’s part, suggesting a move towards more reactive tactics in the face of perceived threats to its territory and national interests.

Tehran’s chessboard

Tehran’s 13 April attack amounted to a “trap” laid for Tel Aviv. Although the target was not clearly disclosed, Iran announced the preparation of an operation in advance, notifying Israel, neighbouring countries, and the United States three days prior. The ambiguous nature of the strike contributes to the opacity of Iran’s defensive intentions. For Tehran, destruction was not the objective. The strike was, in fact, symbolic and its response carefully calibrated: minor damage and no civilian casualties.

Since its inception, Iran’s ballistic missile programme has been deployed on four occasions — always as a retaliatory measure. During the Iran–Iraq War (1980–88), Iran used missiles in response to Iraqi aggression. Subsequently, in 2017 and 2018, missiles were deployed against the Islamic State in Syria, and again in 2020 in Iraq, where American bases Al-Taji and Ain Al-Asad were targeted in retaliation for the killing of General Qasem Soleimani. Most recently, on 13 April 2024, Iran used its ballistic missile programme in response to the Israeli strike of 1 April, which killed thirteen individuals, including seven members of the Revolutionary Guards, notably General Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his deputy Mohammad Hadi Haji Rahimi. The Iranian strike also followed a series of presumed Israeli airstrikes since December 2023 that resulted in the deaths of senior Iranian military commanders such as Razi Mousavi and Sadegh Omidzadeh.

Iran thus felt humiliated. In the eyes of Iranian leaders, not responding to the consulate attack would have been seen as a sign of weakness and would have contradicted the religious and strategic tenets of Shia tradition, which values resistance and retaliation. Indeed, the strategic culture surrounding Iran’s ballistic missile programme is influenced by Shia principles, hadiths, and fatwas that prescribe religious norms governing the use of force. The principle of qisas (retaliation) legitimises responding to enemy aggression, while zarare aghall (minimal damage), a concept frequently invoked by Ali Khamenei in his speeches, justifies the use of precision missiles.

By deploying ballistic missiles and drones “made in Iran”, the country aims to showcase both its resilience and the effectiveness of its military arsenal, while asserting its determination to defend its interests and reaffirm its regional power. Since the Iran–Iraq War, and due to ongoing sanctions, air power has remained Iran’s Achilles’ heel. Consequently, Tehran has prioritised the development of its ballistic missile programme, which is now considered the centrepiece of the country’s conventional deterrence. Its use in the strike against the Israeli airbase is therefore symbolic — a source of national pride for Iran and a demonstration of its strategic autonomy.

Israel’s tactical and symbolic response

The current situation between Israel and Iran marks an unprecedented shift in a relationship that, until now, had been characterised solely by a “shadow war” via proxies in Syria and Lebanon. The confrontation between the two countries is evolving into a new, complex equation, with little hope of immediate resolution.

Israel launched a tactical response on 19 April, targeting the Ispahan airbase in Iran, which protects key nuclear sites. However, this attack has not been officially claimed by the Israeli government. Tel Aviv is thus sending a warning to Tehran, demonstrating its capacity to strike nuclear facilities — a move potentially capable of undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The Iranian regime, for its part, is seeking to avoid direct conflict, aware of its fragile position amid growing internal tensions. Nonetheless, Tehran’s message is firm. While seeking to avoid open warfare with Israel, the regime remains determined to defend its interests and sovereignty if its forces are attacked.

For now, Israel appears to have emerged as the winner in this confrontation. The G7 governments, the European Commission, and the European Council have unanimously condemned the Iranian attack and declared their support for Israel. Tel Aviv seems to have regained European and American solidarity and has successfully diverted attention away from the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. At a meeting of the EU Council, the 27 member states agreed to expand sanctions against the Iranian regime.

Towards a potential regionalisation of the conflict?

Iran now finds itself isolated on the international and regional stage. The United Arab Emirates, Oman, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have expressed growing concern about a potential military escalation in the region.

In this tense balancing act, Hezbollah — which has its own political agenda — continues its attacks against Israel. On 17 April, a Hezbollah strike on two military bases near Acre in northern Israel injured more than a dozen Israelis. On 24 April, the Israeli army carried out nearly forty air and artillery strikes on Hezbollah positions around Aita al-Shaab in Lebanon. These clashes are intensifying, fuelling growing concerns about a broader regionalisation of the conflict, particularly if Iran were to become more directly involved.