Israel's limited attack on Iran 'deescalatory strike', experts claim (2024)

The alleged Israeli attack on Iran this morning was so measured that it could be considered a 'deescalatory strike', experts have claimed, as both sides can ill-afford an all-out war.

The city of Isfahan in central Iran was struck at 5am local time, with Israeli drones reported to have targetedan Air Force base which long has been home to Iran's fleet of American-made F-14 Tomcats - purchased before the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Isfahan is also a known hotbed for Iran's nuclear research and houses drone production plants - but the attack is thought to have caused little material damage, and no casualties have been reported.

Iranian officials sought to downplay any significant damage to its military facilities and outright denied any nuclear plants were destroyed, whileIranian state TV this morning released footage of an undisturbed Isfahan to cast doubt on reports the city had been hit.

Dr Andreas Krieg, an expert on Middle Eastern security and Senior Lecturer at King's College London's School of Security Studies, told MailOnline that such a limited strike could be seen as an effort by Tel Aviv to climb down from a major kinetic conflict.

'If this is the extent of Israel's retaliation it could be described as a deescalatory strike. The use of small drones such as quadcopters provides a degree of plausible deniability that could help Iran downplay the effect of the attack,' he said.

'We could say that this attack makes a return to the shadow war that has been ongoing for years if that is the extent of it.

He added: 'The Iranians would have to respond to a strike that is not deniable or involved Israeli jets over Iran - but this attack does not cross the threshold. Neither side wants an all-out war.'

Iranian officials meanwhile told Reuters that Tehran has no plan for immediate retaliation against Israel, contradicting statements made by several senior politicians earlier this week.

'The foreign source of the incident has not been confirmed. We have not received any external attack, and the discussion leans more towards infiltration than attack,' one Iranian official said on condition of anonymity.

In the days followingIran's bombardment of Israel with missiles and drones last Saturday, Israeli ministers vowed to strike back, with Tel Aviv's hawkish National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir declaring his nation must be prepared 'to go berserk' on Tehran.

As such, the small-scale strikes were not received well by the hard-right elements of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's War Cabinet, with Ben-Gvir himself deriding this morning's explosions in Iran as 'feeble'.

But analysts say Netanyahu, whose popularity has plummeted in Israel with dozens of hostages still in captivity in Gaza after six months of war with Hamas, finds himself in a difficult position.

Israel can ill-afford a major conflict with Iran, particularly as the IDF is stretched to capacity amid the ongoing military operations against Hamas and intermittent skirmishes with Hezbollah at the northern border with Lebanon.

But international vitriol over the IDF's brutal six-month bombardment of Gaza, which has so far caused the deaths of more than 33,000 Palestinians in just six months, dissipated following Iran's strike last weekend, with the US, UK and other allies reaffirming their support for Israel in wake of Tehran's aggression.

With this in mind, Dr Krieg added that Netanyahu may pursue a campaign of limited strikes on Iranian soil - or focusing attacks on Iran's proxies in the region.

'I think a prolonged but manageable conflict is in Netanyahu's interest. That can be achieved by extending the conflict with Iran's Axis of Resistance. This is a low risk conflict that keeps Israel on high alert without the risk of becoming existential.

'Israel might decide to engage in a series of dispersed attacks over time that are individually so negligible that Iran doesn't have to respond. 'Israel might resort to Iran's strategy of "death by a 1000 cuts" which is difficult to deter.'

Similar sentiments were expressed by Justin Crump,British army veteran and CEO of global risk analysis firm Sibylline.

'It remains to be seen if this is the start of a more concerted campaign by Israel steadily to harm Iran while remaining below an escalation threshold, or an isolated act,' he told MailOnline in the wake of the overnight strikes.

'Iran has its own internal problems with spiralling inflation and anti-regime sentiment and is so far keen for things not to escalate. While it has similarly sub-threshold ways to respond, and will likely do so, this limits more major escalation.

'However,' he continued, 'this cannot now truly be a return to business as usual and I would suggest that honour is far from satisfied on both sides at the moment.'

While he said the Israeli strikes 'may give the illusion that we have threaded the needle on the crisis, [...] the baseline level of alert across the region is now going to be escalated for an extended period.'

He added: 'The risk of miscalculations is higher and the many points of tension remain, most obviously Gaza, but also around Iran's nuclear ambitions and capabilities. If this truly is it from Israel [...] then there is a window for intense diplomacy, but how long that remains stable and open is yet to be seen.'

Earlier this week, Mr Crump said a protracted conflict may benefit Netanyahu by reducing the political pressure overIsrael's war in Gaza.

'Permacrisis suits Netanyahu at this stage. This situation has certainly helped Israel and its leadership, reversing the trend of pressure over Gaza and helping defuse some political tensions that were once again building.

'It is to be expected that Netanyahu will leverage this environment. The Israeli public stance from the War Cabinet will therefore remain belligerent, whatever goes on behind the scenes.'

However, some cautioned there is still potential for a wider conflict to spark, arguing that the trading of kinetic strikes represents a significant shift in the rules of engagement between Tel Aviv and Tehran.

'The April 13 missile strikes by Iran demonstrated a shift in the country's stance to one more open to direct military engagement – having previously relied on the use of the militias its backs elsewhere to carry out attacks,'Gabrielle Reid, Associate Director at security firm S-RM said.

'It is clear that both countries are edging hostilities forward. This approach runs the risk of miscalculation or misinterpretation of the actions of the other side that could significantly escalate the situation.

'Now, it comes down to how Iran will respond. Early signs indicate that Iran is highlighting the success of its own defence systems and has reiterated that the attack had little impact, downplaying the incident. However, this could change should there be any further strikes from Israel.'

No official comment has been released by Israel or the US in the wake of the explosions in Iran.

Iranian National Security Committee official Abolfazl Amoue declared earlier this week that Tehran is 'prepared to use a weapon that we have never used' if Israel responds further.

And Iran's foreign minister told CNN yesterday that Tehran's response to an Israeli strike would be immediate.

'If the Israeli regime commits the great error once again our response will be decisive, definitive and regretful for them,' Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said.

But officials cited by Reuters this morning went against these statements, saying Iran had no immediate response planned.

Footage circulating social media appears to show explosions overhead in Iran, though MailOnline has not been able to confirm the footage.

Shortly after reports of strikes emerged, three drones were 'successfully shot down by the country's air defence', according to Iran's National Cyberspace Center spokesman Hossein Dalirain on X.

Israeli officials warned the Biden administration of its intent to strike before launching in previous days, but an official told CNN that the US did not 'green light' any Israeli response.

Hours before, US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin spoke with his Israeli counterpart Yoav Gallant on Thursday afternoon, but a senior source declined to confirm to the New York Timeswhether Gallant warned about the strikes following the meeting.

Israeli military sources reportedly stressed that today's strikes were a 'limited response' to Iran's attack, appearing to target military hubs used by Iran in their onslaught on Saturday.

Around four hours after reports of strikes, Iran lifted flight suspensions and opened its airports, with runways in Tehran, Isfahan and Shiraz closed amid the Israeli attack.

Further explosions reportedly hit military targets inIraq and Syriaaround the same time.Syria's state-run SANA news agency quoted a military statement as sayingIsrael carried out a missile strike targeting an air defence unit in its south, causing material damage.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition war monitor, said the strike hit a military radar for government forces. It was not clear if there were casualties, the Observatory said.

The Observatory's chief Rami Abdurrahman said six Israeli fighter jets entered Syria's airspace and were flying east when they were spotted by the radar.