On April 13, 2024, Iran targeted Israeli territory directly for the first time, launching hundreds of drones and missiles. The strike marked the largest and most significant attack on Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War and the largest drone attack in history, with consequences that could alter the power equations of West Asia. There are seven significant elements that should be highlighted:
First, Israel’s airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus on April 1 killed seven senior Iranian military commanders. In doing so, Israel crossed Iran’s “red line” and violated the most universally recognized norms of international law by attacking diplomatic facilities, undermining Iran’s sovereignty. Despite this, the permanent member states of the United Nations Security Council failed to condemn the violation. Iran stated that the imperative to punish Israel might have been obviated if the UN Security Council had condemned Israel’s military attack. Ultimately, Iran retaliated and declared that its attack was a response carried out in accordance with the principle of “legitimate defense” under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, the Western powers immediately condemned Iran’s actions. This double standard from the United Nations Security Council could undermine global peace and security.
Second, American and Israeli authorities expressed the belief that Iran’s attack was more extensive than anticipated. This point is valid; however, the reality is that Iran’s response was not solely to Israel’s attack on its consulate in Syria. Over the past 15 years, Israel has assassinated dozens of Iranian nuclear scientists and military commanders inside and outside Iran, and carried out numerous cyberattacks and sabotage against Iranian military and nuclear facilities. Tehran showed “strategic patience” and restraint in the past, which Israel perceived as weakness and continued its attacks. However, Israel’s attack on Iran’s diplomatic building provided the opportunity for Tehran to respond in a manner that would address all of Israel’s past attacks at once.
Third, President Biden declared that the US will not participate in any retaliatory Israeli attack against Iran. This is a timely and appropriate decision because if Israel launches a second attack on Iran, it can be expected that Iran will respond with greater force and the escalation could continue. And if the US intervenes, Iran and regional jihadist groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, will engage to attack Israel and target American military bases in the region, leading to the worst-case scenario of a “wider war.”
Fourth, in recent years, I have repeatedly stated and reiterated that a military attack on Iran is the only factor that could push Iran’s current peaceful nuclear program towards weaponization. Therefore, President Biden’s decision not to participate in an attack on Iran is also a wise and calculated decision from this perspective.
Fifth, John Bolton, former National Security Advisor of the United States, suggested that Israel should attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and that Iran only understands the language of force. Misunderstanding, misperceptions, and miscalculations have been the main factors behind wars and crises over the past few decades. Bolton’s school of thought is also favored by some powerful American politicians advocating for intervention. The truth is that the core US strategy after the 1979 Islamic Revolution has been based on “sanctions and pressure” and “regime change.” The result of this policy and mindset has led to the current situation, where Tehran’s relations with the United States, the West, and Israel are the most hostile one can imagine.
In 2007, due to my opposition to the foreign policy of the conservative government of President Ahmadinejad, I was arrested and imprisoned on charges of spying for the West and violating Iran’s national security. After one year, I was sentenced to a two-year suspended jail sentence and barred for five years from serving in Iran’s diplomatic corps, eventually leading to my departure from the country. However, over the past 15 years, through my writings and articles, I have tried to promote mutual understanding between the United States and Iran because I believe that, despite significant differences, both countries have important common interests and should strive for peace through diplomacy.
In this regard, I have repeatedly explained to Americans that Iranians, with their rich history and civilization spanning thousands of years, are a proud nation. Regardless of whether there is a monarch or clerics ruling their country, they do not tolerate bullying, humiliation, and insult. Now, Washington and Tel Aviv should consider the reality that, despite facing the most severe sanctions, pressures, and the worst economic conditions of the past forty years, Iran has responded to Israeli attacks in an unprecedented manner. While Arab countries have not dared to launch a single bullet at Israel in decades, Iran responded to Israeli attack with missiles and drones.
Sixth, it is predictable that, after the recent attack, the West and Israel will try to downplay the military significance of Iran’s strike, while some Iranian policymakers will likely exaggerate and glorify them. However, the reality is that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps alerted the US and Israel several hours before the missiles and drones reached their targets. While Tehran launched a significant volume of missiles and drones, it also provided prior notification to give the United States and Israel an opportunity to, from my perspective, intercept them and prevent a major disaster that could lead to a larger conflict. Iran wanted to send a message to Washington and Tel Aviv that said “stop attacking Iran; otherwise, we will conduct broader and more serious operations in the future without prior notice.”
Seventh, the final point is that the “sanctions, pressure, and destruction” policies of the West, led by the United States, imposed on Iran over the past few decades have led to the creation of a “resistance front” in countries such as Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, now armed with thousands of missiles and drones. At the same time, it has led to a kind of alignment with Eastern bloc powers, especially China and Russia, which share common interests in countering US influence in West Asia.
Stabilizing the volatile situation in West Asia requires more creative approaches and greater initiatives from global and regional powers. Adoption of irresponsible and unbalanced policies can lead to long-term instability in the region and exacerbate its crises.
In my view, achieving peace and stability in West Asia requires five fundamental steps:
1) Israel should accept a sustainable ceasefire in Gaza as soon as possible, open the borders for international humanitarian aid to Gaza, and respect the UN resolutions to end the 70-year-old crisis by realizing a two-state solution.
2) An international initiative must mediate a sustainable ceasefire between Israel and Iran.
3) Direct talks between Iran and the United States are vital to revive the Iran nuclear deal and alleviate broader animosities.
4) A security and cooperation system in the Persian Gulf region should be established to end longstanding Arab-Persian tensions.
5) Operationalize UN decisions regarding the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent the positions of the Middle East Policy Council.