Iranian Attack on Israel: “Strike and Strike Back”

What happened?
In early October 2024, Iran launched an attack against Israel, using about 180 Fateh ballistic missiles, which were launched from Iranian territory and targeted, according to Iranian sources, Mossad headquarters and three major air bases, including the Nevatim base in southern Israel, and Israeli troop concentrations around the Gaza Strip. This is Iran’s second direct attack against Israel since the outbreak of the war in the Gaza Strip.

A closer look:
The attack, dubbed “True Promise 2,” was carried out in what Iran described as “self-defense” and in response to Israeli attacks that assassinated Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31, 2024, and Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Deputy Commander Abbas Nilforoushan on September 27. It comes at a time when Hezbollah is facing structural, organizational and logistical challenges as a result of Israeli strikes on its leaders and weapons storage sites, and less than a day after Israel announced the start of its ground military operations in Lebanon.

In contrast, Israel and the United States downplayed the results and impact of the attack, but at the same time threatened a counter-response. Israeli officials reviewed a bank of expected targets, especially nuclear facilities, oil production platforms and other strategic sites in Iran.

Turning point!
The latest Iranian attack differs from its combined attack on April 14 in terms of: the record time from the time the missiles were launched to their arrival, which took about 15 minutes; the few interceptions of the missiles compared to the first attack, during which about 99% of the flying objects were shot down, according to the Israeli army; the targeted sites, which are directly linked to the course of the war in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon; and its achievement of the element of surprise, as Iran entered a state of complete silence regarding its response to the killing of Nasrallah, and the indications of the attack were monitored by the United States and Israel only hours before its implementation.

However, the attack raises pivotal questions about its objectives and expected results, especially since it may not be effective in stopping the Israeli momentum on various fronts, especially on the most priority front for Iran in Lebanon. However, it is linked to the fact that Iran’s preservation of the option of postponing the response has come at a high cost to its national security directly, especially with the escalation of Israeli rhetoric against it, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s directing of an unprecedented video message to the Iranian people in which he stated that “Iran will be free sooner than many think,” and his veiled threat to the Iranian regime that “there is no place in the Middle East that Israel cannot reach.” Thus, the Iranian strike was consistent with the Israeli rhetoric against it on the one hand, and a message designed to deprive Israel of the initiative and superiority on the other hand, especially since the Iranian attack could have been more destructive if Iran had wanted it to be.

The turning point is linked to the repercussions of the Iranian attack. While Iran continues to declare its desire not to expand the war, the potential Israeli response is what will determine the nature of the upcoming regional scene, as Israel is likely to launch an air attack directly from its territory, targeting Iranian territory, either by flying directly in its airspace, or with long-range missiles launched from the airspace of Syria or Iraq. However, what is certain is that the Israeli strike will require a third Iranian strike in response, which portends the region entering a cycle of “strike and response”, which increases the chances of the war expanding across the region.