Iran launched an unprecedent massive barrage of over 300 drones and missiles at Israel on April 13, in retaliation for Israel's strike on an Iranian diplomatic complex in Syria on April 1. 

Although most of the weapons were intercepted by Israel and its allies, including the United States, this was Iran's first direct attack on Israel from Iranian soil, and it holds significant political and military implications.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) named the operation ‘True Promise,’ signaling Tehran's intent to follow through on threats of "punishment" for attacks by Israel and others. The attack aimed to strengthen Iran's deterrence, which had been perceived as weakened by increasingly confrontational policies and military strikes by the United States and its allies in the region, especially after the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani in 2020.

Iranian officials also appeared to have exercised ‘strategic patience’ after the recent assassination of another IRGC commander in Syria, suggesting that inaction or lower-grade strikes would be too costly for Iran's local and international standing.

While the attacks may have temporarily shifted attention from the ongoing conflict in Gaza, they could also translate into soft power gains for Iran in the Muslim world, particularly compared to regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, whose responses to the Gaza crisis have been more muted.

Additionally, Iran may have a strong legal argument at the United Nations Security Council, as attacks on diplomatic missions violate the Vienna Convention, and the UN Charter enshrines the right to self-defense, which Israel has heavily relied upon during the Gaza war.

Israel May Not Act Rashly

Following Iran's massive attack on Israel, disagreements have emerged within Israel's war cabinet regarding the appropriate scale and timing of a retaliatory strike against Iran. While there is consensus on the need to respond, debates revolve around whether the response should be immediate and proportionate, or delayed and more forceful.

According to Israeli media reports, some cabinet members, including Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, proposed an immediate response to the Iranian attack, but this proposal was rejected. Others believe that carefully planning a stronger response, rather than an "eye for an eye" approach, is necessary.

There are also reports that a planned Israeli response was canceled at the last minute after a phone call between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Joe Biden, suggesting potential US and international pressure to avoid an immediate escalation.

The war cabinet convened on Sunday to weigh Israel's response options. While the security council authorized Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Gantz to determine the response, Gantz stated in a televised statement that "we will make Iran pay the price" when the time is deemed right.

Why Would Israel Retaliate?

Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran are arch foes that have been engaged in a protracted shadow war, involving assassinations, armed strikes, and sabotage operations, often carried out through allied and proxy forces. However, security experts argue that the latest direct attack by Iran on Israeli soil represents a significant escalation that "rewrites the relationship" between the two adversaries and alters the geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East region.

"Traditionally, Israel has a zero-tolerance policy when its national soil is struck by another state," said Stephane Audrand, a security consultant, in a report by Al Jazeera. He believes that the realities faced by Israel dictate that its hawkish Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, "cannot not react" to Iran's provocation.

Tamir Hayman, a former head of Israeli military intelligence who currently leads the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), has also asserted that Israel is certain to retaliate at some stage. "An Israeli response will come, on Iranian soil," he predicted on the social media platform X.

Potential Targets and Risks

Sima Shine, a former Mossad agent who heads the INSS Iran program, suggested that if Israel chooses to retaliate, "it will be done within the same framework: targeting military sites, not civilian areas, and probably not economic targets."

Audrand further elaborated that, to limit the risk of further escalation, "the Israelis would need to confine themselves to strikes on conventional sites, on sites from which missiles were launched, on drone factories."

Menahem Merhavy, an Iran specialist at the Truman Institute of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, noted that the Iranian attack appeared to have been calibrated to avoid "a significant and meaningful number of casualties on the Israeli side."

Hasni Abidi of the Study and Research Centre for the Arab and Mediterranean World in Geneva concurred, arguing that Iran struck Israel "in a controlled manner." Abidi suggested that Iran's particular aim was "to avoid suffering such a substantial response from Israel that would jeopardise their nuclear programme."

The Iranian nuclear program has been a longstanding source of tension between Israel and Iran, with Israel accusing Tehran of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, a charge that Tehran has consistently denied.

Escalation Risks and Considerations

Audrand highlighted the precarious political situation in Israel, where Netanyahu, who has long voiced concerns about Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, currently leads a fragile government coalition with far-right partners. According to Audrand, there is a "risk of escalation on the nuclear issue," as Netanyahu may feel compelled to act decisively to ensure his political survival.

Meir Litvak, the director of the Alliance Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University, warned that "if Israel responds very forcefully, we're likely to come to a situation of escalation that can widen."

Merhavy argued that Israel's response must also take into account the positions of its allies who came to its aid by intercepting many of the projectiles fired by Iran. "The question is whether Israel will break the rules of the game, so to speak, by attacking openly on Iranian soil," Merhavy said, alluding to the potential consequences of such a move.

World Leaders Urge Middle East Tension De-escalation

World leaders have urged de-escalation of tensions in the Middle East following Iran's failed attack on Israel. They emphasized the need for restraint and rational decision-making to avoid further instability in the region.

President Joe Biden warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the US will not take part in a counter-offensive against Iran, an option Netanyahu's war cabinet favours after a mass drone and missile attack on Israeli territory, according to officials.

The threat of open warfare erupting between the arch Middle East foes and dragging in the United States put the region on edge, triggering calls for restraint from global powers and Arab nations.

"The Middle East is on the brink. The people of the region are confronting a real danger of a devastating full-scale conflict. Now is the time to defuse and de-escalate," United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told a Security Council meeting called on Sunday in response to the strikes.

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, warned that the Middle East stood "on the edge of a cliff" and called for de-escalation in the conflict between Israel and Iran.

British Foreign Secretary David Cameron urged Israel not to retaliate against Iran's drone and missile attack, saying Israel should "think with head as well as heart" because Tehran's strike was a near total failure.

French President Emmanuel Macron stated that France would help do everything to avoid an escalation in the Middle East, saying, "We will do everything to avoid a conflagration, that is to say an escalation."

Bangladesh also urged all concerned countries to play an effective role in de-escalating the Iran-Israel tensions and stopping the Israeli killings in Gaza. Foreign Minister Hasan Mahmud said, "Because Israel attacked the Iranian consulate in Syria, Iran got the opportunity to attack, otherwise it would not have happened. Iran has 'retaliated' – that is what Iran says."

Palestinians Clutching at a Straw

Meanwhile, Iran's involvement in the war is indeed receiving applause from the Palestinians, and the supporters of Gaza. The Palestinians are seeing a ray of hope in it, describing it as a rare payback for the Israeli offensive on their enclave. They are hopeful that if Iran or any other country enters the war, a solution for Gaza might be nearer than ever, as the Americans may have to resolve the issue of Gaza to end the roots of the problem. 

"Whoever decides to attack Israel, dares to attack Israel at a time when the whole world acts in its service, is a hero in the eyes of Palestinians, regardless of whether we share their (Iran's) ideology or not," a man named Majed Abu Hamza from Gaza City has been quoted as saying by Reuters. 

"We have been slaughtered for over six months and no one dared to do anything. Now Iran, after its consulate was hit, is hitting back at Israel and this brings joy into our hearts," said another person also named Abu Hamza. 

This sentiment, reflects the age-old proverb that "a drowning man will clutch at a straw." Given their dire circumstances, the Palestinians are definitely justified in thinking that Iran might very well be their savior and the one to come to their aid. However, it will actually be Israel, and its allies in the Western nations, who will be the real responsible parties, should Iran's retaliation really lead to a wider, more extensive war breaking out across the entire Middle East region.