Signaling the Conflict: Mideast Outlook

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spent much of his political career calling for military action against Iran, only to respond in a muted fashion when Israel was directly attacked by Tehran and the US signaled it wouldn’t join a counterstrike. The Israeli operation using a stand-off missile to target an air defense radar near the city of Isfahan appeared designed to send a message that Israel was capable of penetrating Iran’s air defenses at will. But it also provided an off-ramp to avoid the strong counter-response Iran had threatened. The strike was ultimately played down by all sides — with Iran’s foreign minister saying there was no proven connection between Israel and the “toys" used in the Apr. 19 incident — avoiding an immediate escalatory spiral.

Hawks in Israel’s war cabinet had advocated a more robust response, and that may very well still come. But the limited strike reflected US and European allies’ pressure on Israel to demonstrate restraint, in part because Iran’s attack had largely been intercepted and Israel is already engaged in conflict on multiple fronts.

For its part, Iran had notified neighboring countries and Swiss intermediaries — who in turn reportedly told the US — in advance of launching more than 300 drones and missiles at Israel. Although the scale of the attack was larger than US and Israeli officials expected, the telegraphed move provided time for the US to bring more assets to the region and Israel to prepare — helping Israel and its allies to intercept 99% of the incoming projectiles, according to Israel’s military. “But you can’t underplay it, because it was more than 300 cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and drones,” said former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, Mick Mulroy. There was no guarantee that Israel and its allies could intercept the barrage, he said. “It could have been catastrophic if dozens of missiles got through … then it would have been an uncontrolled, rapidly escalating war.”

Diplomatic Overdrive

Recent weeks have seen US President Joe Biden go into diplomatic overdrive to prevent an escalation spiral, including telling Israel that the US would help defend Israel, but would not participate in any direct counterstrike — and advising Israel to “take the win.” Regional capitals also engaged with Iran, reflecting the peace dividend of a detente with Gulf Arab states that want to prevent a regional war, or if there is one, to immunize themselves from any fallout. Turkey and some of Iran’s Gulf neighbors made clear that the US could not use their territory to attack Iran.

US and Israeli officials have said little about Israel’s counterstrike, but Italy’s foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, said “the small scale of the event” was partly the result of G7 efforts, led by the US. Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen also pointed to the effectiveness of US pressure: “There was a risk that Israel would respond in a massive way that would lead to more escalation. I do think the Biden administration was successful in making clear to the Netanyahu government that that would be a mistake.”

In addition, “many of the Gulf States do communicate with Israel at a very discreet level or through intermediaries,” Theodore Karasik of Gulf State Analytics told Energy Intelligence. China also urged restraint: It doesn’t want the region, or its energy installations, blowing up, and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke to his counterparts in Iran and Saudi Arabia following Iran’s Apr. 13 attack on Israel, while noting China’s appreciation of “Iran’s stress on not targeting regional and neighboring countries.”

Fundamentally though, the tit-for-tat response on each other’s territory has changed the rules of engagement in Israel and Iran’s long-running shadow war. For years, Israel has carried out strikes on Iranian forces and aligned groups in Syria, and engaged in covert attacks on nuclear and military facilities and officials in Iran. Tehran, in turn, has followed a doctrine of “strategic patience,” relying on a network of regional allies and proxies to conduct asymmetric warfare on US and Israeli interests.

Israel’s Apr. 1 strike on an Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus, killing several senior Revolutionary Guard officials, appeared to be another attack that fit this pattern — but instead underscored that the theater is ripe for miscalculation: Iran wanted to draw a line. “The message they sent to Israel is, you can no longer act with impunity, there will be retaliation,” said former US diplomat Chas Freeman. “Israel got the message, which is why it retaliated in the minimalist way that it did.” This marks a fundamental change, he added: “Always in the past, Israel’s strategy had been disproportionate retaliation.”

For now at least, Tehran appears to have sidestepped its pledge, after its Apr. 13 direct attacks on Israel, that while it considered the matter concluded, any further Israeli actions against Iran’s interests would be met with a severe response — with Iran’s foreign minister dismissing the Apr. 19 operation as “not a strike,” but “more like toys that our children play with.”

Multiple Flashpoints Remain

As Iran and Israel seek to re-establish deterrence, further miscalculations can’t be ruled out, especially under new rules that include direct strikes. “There's a little glimmer of light. But that might not be permanent,” Karasik said. An anticipated Israeli military offensive in Rafah is a potential flashpoint, as is Israel's northern front with Lebanon — although a Hezbollah source last week told Energy Intelligence that expectations are for clashes to remain limited to the border area. It's unclear how Iran will respond the next time Israel strikes other Iranian interests in the region.

There is also potential for Israel to normalize strikes inside Iran as a retaliation for a strike inside Israel launched by an Iranian proxy, said Richard Goldberg of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think tank. “That might really shift the paradigm when you consider future escalation” by Hezbollah or Yemen’s Houthis, he said. The tit-for-tat retaliation has also reinforced concerns over a nuclear-armed Iran — but laid bare that Israel likely cannot conduct a war against Iran on its own.