− Iran's extensive missile and drone attack on Israel marks a notable escalation between the two nations, marking a significant departure from a longstanding shadow war.
− Israel's anticipated retaliatory response aims to restore deterrence and prevent future assaults but carries the risk of further regional escalation, possibly involving the United States.
− The successful interception of most missiles and drones by Israel, with assistance from the US, UK, and Jordan, underscores strong international military cooperation but also highlights the substantial economic cost of air defence.
− The international community, particularly through diplomatic channels like the United Nations and influential nations such as the UK, emphasises the need for measured responses to avoid a full-scale conflict.
On the evening of April 13, Iran launched an unprecedented direct attack on Israeli territory in retaliation for an Israeli airstrike on April 1 that targeted an Iranian diplomatic facility in Damascus, resulting in the deaths of several high-ranking members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The attack came after Iran had seized the MSC Aries, a Portuguese-flagged, Israeli-linked container ship in the Gulf of Oman.
Over 300 drones and missiles were launched towards Israel by the IRGC. This included 185 drones, 36 cruise missiles and 110 ballistic missiles according to British reports. These were fired from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen by Iranian forces and proxies with the ballistic missiles being fired almost an hour after the slower-moving drones to coordinate their arrival on target. Hezbollah and the Islamic Resistance in Iraq claimed to have launched Katyusha rockets at Kila Airbase in the Golan Heights.
Over 99% of the projectiles and drones were taken down by Israel, the US, the UK, France, and Jordan before they hit Israeli territory although around half the ballistic missiles had reportedly failed to launch or crashed mid-flight. The US confirmed that they had taken down 80 drones and at least six ballistic missiles. This included a ballistic missile launcher and seven drones which were destroyed on the ground in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen before they could be launched. The UK’s Royal Airforce Typhoon jets shot down several drones while Jordan took out “flying objects” which had entered its airspace to “protect its citizens.” French aircraft were also patrolling the area however it is unclear as of yet whether they shot down any projectiles.
In Israel, their Iron Dome missile defence system was in operation, targeting missiles projected to hit populated areas. Despite this robust defence, five ballistic missiles penetrated Israeli defences, with four causing minor damage at the Nevatim Air Force Base in the Negev desert. The airbase houses Israel’s F-35 jets - previously used in the Damascus strike - and was assessed as a primary target for Iran. One missile hit a runway, another hit an empty aircraft hangar and one hit a hangar that was out of use. The fifth ballistic missile seemed to be aimed at a radar site in northern Israel but missed its target. One casualty was reported; a seven-year-old girl who was hit by shrapnel after a drone was intercepted near the southern Israeli town of Arad.
The United Nations has warned that the Middle East is “on the brink” of an all-out conflict following the attack. UN Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council late on April 14: “The people of the region are confronting the real danger of a devastating full-scale conflict.” Despite Iran signalling it deemed the matter “concluded,” Israel told the UN it had “every right to retaliate” to the attack and vowed to “exact a price” against Iran. Iran warned that should Israel “make another mistake,” its response would be "considerably more severe” and warned the US not to intervene.
The US has called on the UN to unequivocally condemn Iran's attack and warned it would respond if Iran or any of its proxies took action against the US or further action against Israel. Both the US and the UK have however urged Israel to show restraint as it considers how to respond from its “position of strength.”
Israel is now expected to respond to the attack as it focuses on reestablishing deterrence against possible future attacks. Any response however risks a significant escalation which could well draw in the US and UK amongst others.
Israel has several options open to it including strikes on Iranian allies and proxies as well as a direct attack on Iran itself. This could manifest as:
1. An intensification of strikes on Iran’s proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, perhaps with an increased focus on IRGC members and assets.
2. Airstrikes against the Houthis or Iranian personnel in Yemen. This option may need US backing.
3. Strikes against launch sites and infrastructure used in the April 13 attack inside Iran or other key military infrastructure. This would also likely need US support and require a focused and sustained effort to make enough of an impact on the infrastructure so as to reduce the threat it poses.
The last option, direct strikes against Iran itself, presents the biggest risk of a more immediate escalation. Iran could then make good on its threat to target the US or other opposing nation's assets in the region. This could manifest as attacks against the US military presence in the region, particularly in Iraq and Syria.
The further targeting of shipping in the region by the Houthis or Iran is also likely. This may expand to ships connected with other associated countries and include armed attacks and seizures with vessels, cargo and their crews being used as leverage in future negotiations.
Looking ahead, the trajectory of this conflict hinges on several critical uncertainties:
1. The Scale of Israeli Retaliation: The extent and nature of Israeli military action in response to the Iranian attack will significantly influence subsequent developments. A measured response might focus on de-escalation and diplomatic engagement, whereas a more extensive military retaliation could provoke further Iranian escalations.
2. International Diplomatic Efforts: The role of global powers, particularly the United States, in mediating or influencing the response will be crucial. US support for Israel's right to defend itself is balanced by concerns over the broader stability of the Middle East. European and other international actors might press for restraint and initiate diplomatic dialogues aimed at reducing tensions.
3. Iran's Strategic Calculations: Iran's initial declaration that its retaliatory attack "concluded" the matter suggests a desire to avoid an all-out war. However, further Israeli strikes could change Tehran's stance, potentially leading to a more prolonged and intense conflict.
4. Regional Dynamics: The involvement of other regional players, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and various militias in Iraq and Syria, adds layers of complexity. Actions taken by these groups in support of Iran could spread the conflict across multiple fronts, challenging efforts to contain the escalation.
Israel and Iran have traditionally engaged indirectly, via proxies, cyber-attacks, and covert operations. The recent direct and open military engagement marks a significant departure from this longstanding shadow war between the two countries. The Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate and Iran's strike against Israel risks normalising open warfare on each other, at least in the form of strikes.
In conclusion, while the immediate military engagements and their aftermath will be critical, the long-term resolution to these heightened tensions likely requires a multifaceted approach involving sustained diplomatic efforts, strategic military planning, and comprehensive international cooperation. The risk of a broader conflict remains substantial, and the coming days will be crucial in determining whether escalation can be avoided or if the region is headed towards a more devastating confrontation.