Frank Kelly: Israel/Iran Update | April 14, 2024

Twenty-four hours after Iran’s unprecedented and massive yet failed attack, it is clear now the way the strikes were telegraphed ahead of time also demonstrates Iran’s continued desire to avoid escalation to sustained conflict. Tehran’s statement submitted to the U.N. Security Council justified the attack as an act of self-defense under the United Nation’s Article 51 and, notably, made clear that no further attack is coming unless it is “provoked” by further Israeli military action.

Similarities to Iranian missile strikes against U.S. bases in Iraq

In some ways, the attacks bear similarities to Iranian missile strikes against U.S. bases in Iraq. They were flashy, symbolic, and demonstrated capability but were also calibrated in such a way as to minimize casualties and offer a potential off-ramp from the cycle of retaliation and escalation. The rapid response from the U.S. and allies (notably U.K. and Jordanian Air Forces joining the U.S. and Israel in shooting down the vast majority of the 300-plus Iranian drones and missiles) both allowed Iran to launch this attack with some expectation that damage would be limited while also emphasizing to Tehran the grave risks of escalation that spirals into sustained conflict.

Iran directly attacked Israel, and that has changed everything

But the fact is Iran directly attacked Israel, and that has changed everything. Iran could have retaliated against Israel using their significant proxy forces surrounding Israel now (Hezbollah, Houthi forces, and a multitude of smaller forces or via semi-cloaked asymmetrical means (e.g., large-scale cyber-hacking, destruction of Israeli satellites, terror attacks inside Israel).  But for reasons that have left many in Washington mystified, Tehran chose to take the most drastic and dangerous choice to strike back at Israel in retaliation for Israel’s killing of senior Revolutionary Guard generals and staff in Syria.  We note that this decision most likely shows Iran’s internal policy decision-making processes have long been badly fragmented due to competing power centers in Tehran that are often not particularly strategic or well-thought-out.

What comes next?

The questions now are what comes next, when, and how will it happen?  Surveying U.S. government sources last night and today, we found there is little doubt Israel is almost certainly going to strike back at Iran in a significant and likely massive way – and likely not in a proportional way that President Biden and other allies have urged. But Israel has challenges in figuring out how to conduct any strikes:

• Geography – Iran trampled over the Gulf State’s, Iraq’s, and Jordan’s air space and sovereignty attacking Israel. Will Israel do the same counter-attacking Iran, further raising regional military tensions?  The question we repeatedly heard today was: Jordan bravely stepped up to help defend Israel – how can Israel now turn around and attack Iran by violating Jordan’s air space?
• Targets – Does Netanyahu use this opportunity to strike/destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities? Or do they focus on Iran’s oil terminals, effectively crippling an already crippled economy (and risk the anger of China which is the biggest purchaser of Iran’s oil)?  Or do they target Iranian leadership in Tehran? Or some combination of all three?
• Global Pressures – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel have almost instantly regained, thanks to Iran’s attack, significant support and sympathy internationally that become increasingly diminished due to the War in Gaza. Does Netanyahu want to risk losing that support now? And if Netanyahu does decide to proceed in a calibrated way, will he further lose support among Israelis now traumatized by the attack and already fed up with Iran’s constant threats for decades (a recent poll showed 70 percent of Israelis want Netanyahu to step down as Prime Minister)?

We would note that Israeli schools and other public sites remain closed, suggesting the reply may occur in the next 24 hours.