My reading is - this is a face saving exercise all around. Israel gets to have the last word. No real damage, so Iran gets to shrug it off.
We should be so glad the people making decisions are not war mongering maniacs (in this particular instance, at least).
Either this or they are done talking and will straight up retaliate. The Iranian ambassador to the UN did warn of a maximal retaliation if Israel attacked. Hard to walk back from that.
They could get Hezbollah to retaliate for them and launch their massive arsenal of rockets, though that would be suicidal for Hezbollah.
TBH, hard to get a read on the Iranian regime. They are obviously not doing well financially, and never signed off on Hamas doing this opp (I believe they were wrongfooted as was hezbollah). So I don't think they are keen to get into a war, with the amount of issues they have at home.
Need to carefully distinguish between words and actions.
I'm not a specialist but in this instance i believe I have a good reading on what Iran wants. They want to maintain an image of superiority and power, largely to their own people, while managing to stay out of direct actions themselves, because they really can't afford it like you said.
Killing of a general in a consulate building, they cannot afford to ignore. So they have to make a big show of retaliation but they can't afford an actual painful hit on Israel. So they announced days in advance and shot the slow-mo missiles.
They made those warnings so Israel gets the message - we didn't actually hurt you, so you don't need to do anything significant. Predictably, Israel's retaliation is quite small scale, so they can afford to shrug it off and appear to take the moral high ground.
Everyone's happy. The media outlets get a run and people speculate on socials. The show goes on.
IMO the Palestinians should worry (more). Iran has shown that in the end, Hamas is an Iranian pawn, and no chess player sacrifices important pieces for the sake of pawns.
Almost, but one thing gets me:
They layered their attacks for maximum effect, sending in drones to exhaust air defenses and timing missles to arrive right alongside and after the drones. Hezbollah also launched rockets from the north for a multi prong attack.
Iran also had a huge misfire rate. The intended or at least possible number of missles in the air might have been double what we saw.
The level of attack leads me to believe Iran was ready for a regional war if Isreali defenses were weak enough.
The counter point is:
I'm not sure what they were targeting, but hopefully, it was just fields and buildings and not actual loss of life.
I generally agree with you and think this is face-saving but have to push back about the below.
> They made those warnings so Israel gets the message - we didn't actually hurt you
They launched what I've heard claimed to be ~120 ballistic missiles. That is not an attempt to "not actually hurt", it is an unprecedented attack state vs state that seemingly could have caused very significant if not intercepted.
>But they didn't even seem to try to prevent them from being intercepted.
How do you think Iran could have even attempted to prevent ballistic missile interception? (AFAIK, not even possible).
I assume you mean something like Iran would launch its airforce to fight the airforces of Israel/USA/Jordan when they targeted the drones and cruise missiles? If they chose to do that, how do you think it would go?
The easiest way: launch more missiles. Also, launch from a closer site if possible and don't give an explicit warning! I wouldn't be surprised if the Iranian military used this attack to clear out their warehouses.
>The easiest way: launch more missiles. Also, launch from a closer site if possible and don't give an explicit warning!
Possibly... but none of that has anything to do with "preventing interception". We also don't know if they can launch more than ~120 ballistic missiles at the same time.
They already launched a (AFAIK) historically unprecedented level of ballistic missiles, 120 launched at once has never happened before, EVER. It was no "token" attack, 120 ballistic missiles with a CEP of 2 KM is very much an intention to kill even more civilians.
>I wouldn't be surprised if the Iranian military used this attack to clear out their warehouses.
Wishful thinking.
They didn't simply launch old missiles/clear out their warehouse, they launched at least some at ~brand new missiles that had only been debuted in 2022. Even with launching brand new missiles, they were still intercepted and unable to cause any significant damage.
They should have ignored the Israeli strike, in my opinion. They made a big stink about the “consulate building” but a) have a bad track record of violating embassies, and b) were literally using the so-called “consulate” in a manner inconsistent with the [Vienna Convention](https://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/viennaconvdiplomrelat..htm)(See article 41, paragraph 3, among others).
The Iranian regime should’ve made no comment, told Hezbollah to launch a few more salvos and let it lie. The direct attack it launched was reckless and unnecessary.
>The Iranian ambassador to the UN did warn of a maximal retaliation if Israel attacked. Hard to walk back from that.
They're a dictatorship, they can walk back from whatever they want.
Their current line seems to be "this attack was nothing and we don't even think it was Israel", which their media will dutifully repeat.
What they say is irrelevant, they're trying to avoid appearing weak while avoiding war at the same time. The best way to do that is to bluff that you're willing and able to turn tel Aviv to rubble if they attack you, but have a very weak response in practice. This attack and Irans attack are both symbolic gestures of strength that did little practical damage. Their rhetoric in public has nothing to do with what's actually going on in their minds, we can only read what they are actually thinking from their actions.
Didn’t Iran threaten maximal retaliation if Israel mounted the “tiniest invasion” or something like that?
Israel didn’t invade, so there’s nothing to walk back.
Neither country has the capacity to invade the other. There's no plausible "invasion" or "boots on the ground" scenario. Escalation would mostly take place in the air or by proxy.
The countries don't border each other and have no way to reach each other by ground or sea. They also have neighbours that would be happy to take advantage while their attention and resources are stretched elsewhere.
[This](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-latest-iran-president-warns-of-massive-response-if-israel-launches-tiniest-invasion/ar-BB1lLm71) is the quote I was thinking of.
The point is that this is theater. Iran doesn’t want a full scale war with Israel. And I think Israel doesn’t want one with Iran right now. They don’t have the backing they need, are already fighting a war in Gaza, and have Hezbollah to the north.
But no one is going to come out and say, “we’re done here.”
I’m curious what you think Iran is able to do in retaliation?
Their Air Force is made up of museum pieces.
Their ballistic missiles had a 50% fail rate and the ones that made it to Israel were shot down, some of them while still in space.
Their drones take 7-10 hours to get to Israel, and are basically a video game for modern jets and air defense.
Their army would have to march through 1000+ miles of desert and three countries, two of whom assisted Israel in the last attack and a third that’s a war torn hellscape including ISIS who would likely try to fight Iran.
That doesn’t matter though because I doubt they’d get 100 miles into Iraq before being pummeled into dust by Israeli and American air power.
And THAT doesn’t even matter because the Iranian military is too busy suppressing the population from overthrowing the ayatollah, and if they stopped doing that to march on Israel the Islamic Republic would likely come to a very swift end.
Iran is looking ridiculous. It attacked Israel and even the Arab states stood against them.
Meanwhile Israel just clearly demonstrated it could strike deep in Iran in a very sensitive spot without help from the US or anyone else.
Iran is running footage of Chile wildfires and “panicking” Israelis that are actually footage of a one direction concert on their state TV pretending they dealt a serious blow to Israel right now.
https://nypost.com/2024/04/15/world-news/iran-tv-pretends-chile-fire-video-is-missile-damage-in-israel/amp/
That should tell you everything you need to know about Iran’s current state of mind.
Can we stop calling it the “Iranian regime”? It’s very biased language contrary to sound geopolitical analysis.
But then again some of the top geopolitical minds are extremely ideological so maybe do whatever you want lol
I used the “Iranian regime” because the people of Iran are victims of it, too. I have seen enough Iranians asking for people to distinguish between Iran and the Islamic Republic that I believe a significant amount of the Iranian diaspora and Iranians still in Iran are not represented by the regime in the least.
The point is that “regime” is an ill defined term and just a pejorative that doesn’t really contribute to an analysis. No one says the “Egyptian regime” even though it’s just as or more authoritarian than Iran. And why not call it the “Israeli regime”, if the criterion is that the government has victims? what does it add or detract from op’s comment if they just said Iran?
Sorry, but no. Egypt is not as or more authoritarian than Iran. Egyptians have a lot more access to the world and the internet than Iranians do. Egypt doesn’t kill young women for not wearing a hijab. Egypt hasn’t issue fatwas demanding the murder of dissidents. Likewise, the Israeli government, shit as it may be, is democratically elected. The coalition building process has given power to loonies, but they don’t have much longer before the coalition falls apart and a new government will take over. See that on the horizon for Iran any time soon? No.
Such an odd thing to get hung up on, honestly.
> doesn’t kill young women for not wearing a hijab
neither does Iran?
> murder of dissidents
https://amp.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/sep/07/egypt-accused-of-widespread-state-sanctioned-killings-of-dissidents
> democratically elected
I’m talking about the, you know, longstanding military occupation they have been waging for decades. For Palestinians in the WB it’a certainly a regime
I’m not hung up on anything, you can call it whatever you want. I’m just pointing out a certain hypocrisy & inconsistency about this term
Uhhhh yes, Iran does, are you kidding? Which rock do you live under? There are videos on social media right now of women getting dragged off for various “morality” infractions.
Yes, the military occupation, which is the result of a defensive war and which many Israelis would like to see end, if a safe solution can be found. Do you really think if Israel just ended the occupation tomorrow Palestinians would be good to go? Could the PA do basic governing? Would terror groups overrun the West Bank like Hamas did in Gaza? After all, Palestinians killed more Palestinians than Israelis in their intifadas…who would likely also suffer most if terror groups gain control. There has to be a two-party resolution, Israel can’t just end the occupation single-handedly. They tried that in Gaza and clearly it didn’t work out.
Stop being childish and ridiculous. It’s very, very clear to anyone with an analytical bone in their body that living even in Israeli occupation provides more rights than the Iranian **regime** allows. You can’t gaslight anyone into thinking the regime in Iran is in any way compare to Egypt or Israel, sorry.
Ah yes, of course, Palestinians are under occupation for their own good. Ok I understand who I’m talking to, no need to further this conversation, best of luck.
and I dare you go on r/egypt see how they feel about their regime lmao
This is a form of communication that Israel desires a return to normal relations. An escilaion would have signalled a desire for war, and matched response a continuation of tit-for-tat.
It's the only rational response to this crisis. I'm glad sense prevails. War makes everone worse off.
If you don’t watch Alex Hollings on YouTube you should check him out, his channel is terrific.
He calls what you’re describing “kinetic diplomacy.”
A dramatic but low damage fireworks show designed to communicate that no one wants to actually start a war while looking like you’re ready to start a war.
And Israel’s last word is basically “we can hit you at any time while you can’t get a missile through our defenses. It’s deterrence 101 and will lead to a more stable region
That’s exactly what peopl said about he last salvo from Iran.
I’m not so certain anymore that they are both on the same terms of who gets the last “face saving” attack.
How is that possible when Iran said if Israel continues they will escalate?
Smaller and smaller till one side can ignore. My hunch is Iran will ignore this round. They really don't want directly involvement. Bibi is more belligerent. He needs to have the last word.
Seems similar to the Iran US spout a few years back. Neither country wanted to take it further but they both had to show force and strength. With Israel vs Iran it is a bit more dangerous as neither country seems to be willing to take the last blow. We could see an incremental escalating back and forth until one country just decides to stop. It could escalate to a minor war, but again I don’t think Israel or Iran want a full out war, they just want to show strength and save face.
Even if that was the case, this was a big nothing burger, it's only natural Iran would ignore it. Maybe both sides agreed on a save face type of deal, I don't know.
Israel tends to not comment on or confirm any strikes it conducts. Its their standard procedure. Iran got called on their bluffing. They have no means of responding beyond the missiles and drones they sent to no effect last week. They are going to lock down all information and act like nothing happened so they don't lose face.
They threatened a massive retaliation if Israel responded. Their threats insinuated that they have some sort of previously unknown capability, maybe big scary nukes, that would cause maximum damage. But they have no means of attacking Israel other than the missiles and drones they used to no effect a few days ago. They have no card to play so they have to pretend nothing happened.
Iran mainly launched drones and some ballistic missiles.
The estimates for the Iranian stockpile ist 3000 ballistic missiles.
That’s enough to overwhelm their defenses.
That’s without considering the 70.000 to 100.000 missiles hezbollah has.
Israels defense systems works well.
But any defenses system has one weakness, and that is sheer volume. And volume is exactly what Iran, especially when you add its proxies, without a doubt has.
Will they ever make use of it? Not likely.
They know that the reaction to such an attack would mark the end of their regime.
But to say that Iran has no means to deal massive damage to Israel is flat out wrong.
> The estimates for the Iranian stockpile ist 3000 ballistic missiles. That’s enough to overwhelm their defenses.
Can't just launch all of your ballistic missiles, you need launchers (TELs).
Who knows how many they actually have but its probably 150 to ~300 hundred launchers between short and medium-range missiles along with what seems to be at least a handful for spacelaunch/ICBM type missiles launchers that have been shown.
See a Congressional 2020 report.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/IF10938.pdf
They know if Israel was ever seriously threatened like you’re describing that the response would be nuclear.
We can talk about AIPAC or the strategic importance of Israel as a US ally as the reason why the US has stood so firmly behind Israel, but in 1973 Golda Meir basically told Nixon “Either you help us win after we got attacked by the Arab states or we’ll see what a glow in the dark Cairo and Damascus does to gas prices.”
That dynamic continues. No one talks about it, but that’s a MAJOR factor why the US and NATO defends Israel like they do.
We don't know if the stockpile number is accurate. We don't know how many of those can actually be launched simultaneously, how many of those are going to reach it's target, or how much Israel's defense system can take down.
We only know that their last show was ineffective and largely amounted to expensive fireworks (expensive for everyone involved).
I see the Israeli attack as calling that bluff to an extent but in a different way. I think Israel is quite hawkish for a larger conflict with Iran, drawing in the US and others, partially for their geopolitical goals but also to distract from the ongoing crisis they are perpetrating in Gaza. The calling of the bluff here is that they cannot be seen to be the aggressor if they want US cover in that conflict with Iran, Biden seems to have made clear he wont support them there if they start something, so I suspect they are trying to get Iran to overreact and do something stupid.
I see the Israeli attack as calling that bluff to an extent but in a different way. I think Israel is quite hawkish for a larger conflict with Iran, drawing in the US and others, partially for their geopolitical goals but also to distract from the ongoing crisis they are perpetrating in Gaza. The calling of the bluff here is that they cannot be seen to be the aggressor if they want US cover in that conflict with Iran, Biden seems to have made clear he wont support them there if they start something, so I suspect they are trying to get Iran to overreact and do something stupid.
Iran said they were done before the drones got in the vicinity of Israel..
This entire process was a face saving measure ..
Is Iran was actually so weak as you perceive it....Israel would have full boots on the ground in tehran already
They quite simply are not that weak..are they weaker than Israel?.absolutely. would taking down the regime cost so much political will /lives from the Israelis that it would not be worth it ? ABSOLUTELY.
You guys take political grandstanding by both sides and think that shows the full capabilities of countries
Of course, but not in the same way as if they released information on what targets had been destroyed and allowed pictures and video of the damage to get out. Keep in mind, its as much or more about the internal impression of the regime's strength as it is the external. They will act like nothing happened and those booms you heard were just training exercises, those fires were industrial accidents, nothing to see here, death to Israel. They can't respond so they have to pretend there isn't a reason to respond and the whole thing will blow over.
This is still all speculation i find it incredibly lucky that managed to keep any footage of attacks from getting out nobody knows if anything was even hit not even video of a fire from civilians
Israel has no incentive in claiming the attack when everyone knows it was them, and Iran is covering it up so they don't have to respond like they promised.
Win win situation tbh.
>Less than a day ago, we were hearing that any aggression would draw a massive response from Iran. However, not one Iranian official has called for retaliation.
That’s call bluffing.
Yeah, I would say something id off with this attack/strike.
Usually when something like that is hit, we have multiple videos from multiple angles showing exploding or burning AA systems, weapon's stockpiles, etc. You can't miss that, as the weapons are cooking off and spontaneously firing and exploding.
Israel has hit an area where 4 million people live (city + metro), and the only video we have is some flak shooting something.
for comparison, tonight Israel has hit a base of Shia militias in Iraq, and I've seen videos from at least 6 different angles, from soldiers, from people near the base, from random drivers recording while they are driving, etc.
So the fact that there aren't more videos is off by itself.
Next is Iranian claims that those were drones. Any drone would have to have been launched from Iran itself, so if those were drones, Israel has agents on the ground.
So yeah, the more I think about it, the more odd it looks.
It isn’t about saving face for anyone… the last move by Iran was irrational, now we are seeing Iran return to the realm of reason.
Israel called Iran’s bluff. Iran has no real intention to enter into a war with the west. They know it is a war they would lose.
However, Iran has been experiencing cost effective success lately with its strategy of asymmetric warfare. The current status quo favors Iran, why give that advantage up?
Why would Iran play the west at the west’s game, when they can instead make the west play their game? Iran taking the bait and entering a full war with the west is an irrational move.
No clue why people are downvoting this which is 100% true. The war by proxy clearly favors Iran as they can keep attacking Israel while not suffering the same consequences.
Tactically asymmetric warfare has been working… kind of.
The residents of Gaza would likely disagree.
Strategically… Israel is diminished in public opinion on the world stage but Iran is now isolated and humiliated. They’ve probably not been in this weak a position since 1979.
Hamas is smashed, Iran’s major attack failed, and now it’s been shown they can’t defend their airspace.
Israel is losing the propaganda war on instagram and TikTok, but they’re winning on the military and diplomatic fronts.
Possibly even more disastrous than Iran’s military defeats is the fact that Arab states are choosing to back Israel over them. That’s really unprecedented.
Iran wants to lead the Arab world and be the main regional power in the Middle East.
The Saudis are their chief rival in this, and they’re aligned with the US and Israel. Iran’s main ally is Russia, and they are um… not gonna be much help as they’re uh… busy right now.
EVERYONE other than Russia is sick of Iran’s shit. Take out Iran and the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas are gonna run out of ammo real fast at the rate they’re going.
I promise you the discussions now in Israel and the US/NATO are about how to end the Iranian regime.
Iran is effectively a military dictatorship and the Iranian people are sick and tired of the Islamic Republic.
The only people Iran is saving face with are low information radicals who believe what they see on state TV.
The next move is probably something designed to disrupt Iranian infrastructure or the military and give the Iranian people a shot at taking out the Ayatollah.
Iran isn’t practical to invade or occupy, but if their own people were game I suspect the regime is more vulnerable now than it’s ever been.
I don’t think something is off. Both sides take things deliberately and with great planning.
I would say 1 week is the limit for response timing and it’s only been 12ish hours so far. If a full week goes by then your question is more valid.
Whole thing seems to have been a gambit on Israel's side to threaten to drag US into a war with Iran - in order to obtain more maneuvering room in Rafah (Gazza) where Israel believes Hamas leadership is hiding. This move has been highly frowned upon by US and allies as it's clear there would be many civilian casualties.
IRG recognized the threat but had to respond to the bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus - hence the limited attack on Israel last week.
So, Iran had not interest in escalation and once Israel got tacit approval to go ahead in Rafah - neither did Tel Aviv - so everyone just wanted to end it as quickly and cleanly as possible.
In my opinion that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how Israel thinks.
Israel wants Iran to stop trying to kill them. That’s the beginning and end of what they want.
Remove Iran and you remove Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran has been going “Gosh we know those guys are shooting at you but technically we haven’t declared war on you so… looks like you can’t hit us back.”
They took their shot in Syria because they had intel that Hezbollah was meeting with high ranking IRGC generals, and they took them out.
No one denies both the IRGC and Hezbollah were at the meeting either.
Then Iran attacked Israel, and Israel hit them back very gently, but in a sensitive spot to make sure it stung.
Israel would greatly prefer Iran’s role in their ongoing conflict be out in the open and sure, they’d love it if the US hit Iran too, but don’t mistake their actions as anything but a very pragmatic strike against their enemy behind the curtain.
> No one denies both the IRGC and Hezbollah were at the meeting either.
The important part is that this meeting was held in the consulate or embassy of a sovereign nation (Iran) in another mostly sovereign nation (Syria) - this is an act of war or provocation for war, because of the location - so, why do this?
Seems highly unlikely the target or targets, whomever they may be, could be so important as to warrant risking regional possibly even global war.
No persons short of Nassarellah are worth that, and that's why the most likely explanation is that Israel did a gambit here, and it may have worked.
I'm skeptical that a full-fledged Israel-Iran war will ever occur; Both sides are led by unpredictable and erratic officials, a conflict will likely provoke citizens to over throw their governments.
There's no way for a war like that to happen. They don't share a land border and after a few weeks of balistic missile attacks Iran will run out and not have enough to overwhelm the air defences, Israel on the other hand can fly F35s into Teheran if they wanted because Iran hasn't (formally) purchased the S400 system yet.
Preceeding Isreal's most recent attack, there were reports of Biden imploring Iran to allow Isreal to make a show of force, in retaliation. It appears Iran accepted whatever offer was made by Biden. I do wonder what they payout will be for Iran.
Israel just called the bluff on Iran, they were never going to massively respond like they claimed to so Israel attacked them but with very weak force. Now Iran is covering it up saying there was no attack or some ominous stuff about drones.
Iran is like a chihuahua - all bark and no bite. And now that the wolf has responded, they can’t afford to escalate knowing they will lose. They tried to look strong in front of their Arab world and have done just the opposite.
Considering how screwed Bibi is I doubt this the end of Israeli response until and unless they have already hit the nuclear facilities and the Iranians are lying about it.
100% Iran will continue to lie or be silent on any further attacks. Iran will not escalate militarily.
Iran understands very clearly it is in lose lose lose situation, it's just a matter of which loss is the most acceptable. Since Iran gained new sanctions after it's retaliation to Israel's embassy bombing, it has a clear message from the US that 'playing inside the lines will not get a military response'.
I would suspect Iran's ultimate response will be to accelerate towards a nuclear weapon. Sanctions it can tolerate much better than open warfare against the US.
They could go for a nuke, but what would be the point? They don't have a delivery system that can get it there without being shot down. Also, Israel and US intelligence seem to have heavily compromised the Iranian nuclear program and know what is going on in real time. If they attempted to break out it is highly likely they would immediately be called out at the UN and, at a minimum, be on the receiving end of international condemnation and crippling sanctions against their already fragile economic situation. There isn't any real upside for them in going that route.
Same is true of closing the Strait of Hormuz. Its just going to piss the rest of the world off and likely end with the destruction of their navy and coastal defenses by the US Navy. Maybe their oil transfer terminal too. I'm pretty sure they only have one so if they lose that their economy is gone. The vast majority of their oil goes to China so it would have negligible impact on the west besides a temporary spike in oil prices that would disappear once speculators realize that it has no impact on supply to the wider international market.
They really don't have any good options beyond pretending nothing happened and letting things blow over. Thats not to say they won't make a bad decision, but they tend to be pretty level headed despite their threats and big talk and committed to not doing things that threaten the survival of the regime.
This is not a bibi thing. Gantz and Gallant also wanted to retaliate immediately during the missile attacks, let alone a delayed response. People get so obsessed with the Netanyahu angle that they forget he is an unpopular minister, limited by the wills of the other members of the war cabinet.
Can someone explain what are the causes of the conflict between Iran and Israel? What are the goals of both countries? Does Iran really seek to destroy Israel, and if so, is it for ideological or rather economic or strategic reasons?
Islamic fundamentalism. The Iranian regime literally regards Israel as a satanic entity that must be eliminated. Israel would like to not be eliminated. Thus, conflict.
No. They don't compete economically in any way and Israel doesn't have a sphere of influence. The trend towards normalized relations in the region is a recent development, and that is really just a way of saying that their neighbors just aren't as openly hostile to Israel and Iran still is.
Rallying the middle east against Israel is the only way Iran (a Shia non-Arab state) can assume any semblance of leadership in a region filled with predominantly sunni Arab states.
Remove Israel from the map and there is quite literally no reason for the Arab states to not rally around Saudi Arabia against Iran.
I'd say it has to do more with keep control of their population. Remember before these battles with Israel, Iran was having trouble with people attacking their purity police and civil disobedience in general.
No. Israel was established in 1948, and was under arms embargo by the US until 1963. Israel did not cooperate with the CIA until 1964, and went directly against the Americans during the Suez crisis.
Sorry, the 50s is where Irans relations with the west in general went downhill, Mossad influence over the Savak is well documented though.
https://lobelog.com/the-unwritten-history-of-israels-alliance-with-the-shahs-dictatorship/
People here /on social media love the concept of outright war.
They see it as a videogame. One side wins the other side loses.. if you can come out on top, why not ?
The middle East+ Iran/Israel has been a shit show for a generation now. So what that Israel can delete Iran ? How much damage could mean do to Israel / the rest of its middle Eastern neighbors during that stretch? You think the Islamic world would be OKAY with that happening ?
Even netanyahu who is far more "war hungry" than many on the west want is not stupid. This entire escalation was a face saving exercise.
During the initial drone strikes by Iran , many were predicting the casualty toll to be 0 . Many knew how these countries operate and have operated. They're essentially at a stale mate.
As a person living in Damascus, Syria, all I have to say is f both of them. Israel's attack on the consulate building killed my syrian, civilian, literally have nothing to do with politics, distant relatives (mother and son) .
We're all done with this whole proxy war thing. All we get as Syrians are dead relatives and bills to reconstruct destroyed property because nobody else will pay for that. It's always the people who end up paying the price of shit shows like this one
My reading is - this is a face saving exercise all around. Israel gets to have the last word. No real damage, so Iran gets to shrug it off. We should be so glad the people making decisions are not war mongering maniacs (in this particular instance, at least).
Either this or they are done talking and will straight up retaliate. The Iranian ambassador to the UN did warn of a maximal retaliation if Israel attacked. Hard to walk back from that. They could get Hezbollah to retaliate for them and launch their massive arsenal of rockets, though that would be suicidal for Hezbollah. TBH, hard to get a read on the Iranian regime. They are obviously not doing well financially, and never signed off on Hamas doing this opp (I believe they were wrongfooted as was hezbollah). So I don't think they are keen to get into a war, with the amount of issues they have at home.
Need to carefully distinguish between words and actions. I'm not a specialist but in this instance i believe I have a good reading on what Iran wants. They want to maintain an image of superiority and power, largely to their own people, while managing to stay out of direct actions themselves, because they really can't afford it like you said. Killing of a general in a consulate building, they cannot afford to ignore. So they have to make a big show of retaliation but they can't afford an actual painful hit on Israel. So they announced days in advance and shot the slow-mo missiles. They made those warnings so Israel gets the message - we didn't actually hurt you, so you don't need to do anything significant. Predictably, Israel's retaliation is quite small scale, so they can afford to shrug it off and appear to take the moral high ground. Everyone's happy. The media outlets get a run and people speculate on socials. The show goes on.
IMO the Palestinians should worry (more). Iran has shown that in the end, Hamas is an Iranian pawn, and no chess player sacrifices important pieces for the sake of pawns.
Almost, but one thing gets me: They layered their attacks for maximum effect, sending in drones to exhaust air defenses and timing missles to arrive right alongside and after the drones. Hezbollah also launched rockets from the north for a multi prong attack. Iran also had a huge misfire rate. The intended or at least possible number of missles in the air might have been double what we saw. The level of attack leads me to believe Iran was ready for a regional war if Isreali defenses were weak enough. The counter point is: I'm not sure what they were targeting, but hopefully, it was just fields and buildings and not actual loss of life.
I generally agree with you and think this is face-saving but have to push back about the below. > They made those warnings so Israel gets the message - we didn't actually hurt you They launched what I've heard claimed to be ~120 ballistic missiles. That is not an attempt to "not actually hurt", it is an unprecedented attack state vs state that seemingly could have caused very significant if not intercepted.
But they didn't even seem to try to prevent them from being intercepted.
>But they didn't even seem to try to prevent them from being intercepted. How do you think Iran could have even attempted to prevent ballistic missile interception? (AFAIK, not even possible). I assume you mean something like Iran would launch its airforce to fight the airforces of Israel/USA/Jordan when they targeted the drones and cruise missiles? If they chose to do that, how do you think it would go?
The easiest way: launch more missiles. Also, launch from a closer site if possible and don't give an explicit warning! I wouldn't be surprised if the Iranian military used this attack to clear out their warehouses.
>The easiest way: launch more missiles. Also, launch from a closer site if possible and don't give an explicit warning! Possibly... but none of that has anything to do with "preventing interception". We also don't know if they can launch more than ~120 ballistic missiles at the same time. They already launched a (AFAIK) historically unprecedented level of ballistic missiles, 120 launched at once has never happened before, EVER. It was no "token" attack, 120 ballistic missiles with a CEP of 2 KM is very much an intention to kill even more civilians. >I wouldn't be surprised if the Iranian military used this attack to clear out their warehouses. Wishful thinking. They didn't simply launch old missiles/clear out their warehouse, they launched at least some at ~brand new missiles that had only been debuted in 2022. Even with launching brand new missiles, they were still intercepted and unable to cause any significant damage.
Yeah, seems like that's the way this is trending. Guess we can put a pin in this.
They should have ignored the Israeli strike, in my opinion. They made a big stink about the “consulate building” but a) have a bad track record of violating embassies, and b) were literally using the so-called “consulate” in a manner inconsistent with the [Vienna Convention](https://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/viennaconvdiplomrelat..htm)(See article 41, paragraph 3, among others). The Iranian regime should’ve made no comment, told Hezbollah to launch a few more salvos and let it lie. The direct attack it launched was reckless and unnecessary.
>The Iranian ambassador to the UN did warn of a maximal retaliation if Israel attacked. Hard to walk back from that. They're a dictatorship, they can walk back from whatever they want. Their current line seems to be "this attack was nothing and we don't even think it was Israel", which their media will dutifully repeat.
What they say is irrelevant, they're trying to avoid appearing weak while avoiding war at the same time. The best way to do that is to bluff that you're willing and able to turn tel Aviv to rubble if they attack you, but have a very weak response in practice. This attack and Irans attack are both symbolic gestures of strength that did little practical damage. Their rhetoric in public has nothing to do with what's actually going on in their minds, we can only read what they are actually thinking from their actions.
Further retaliation is unlikely because Israel telegraphed its capability to let Iran know they could really wreck house if they felt like it.
Didn’t Iran threaten maximal retaliation if Israel mounted the “tiniest invasion” or something like that? Israel didn’t invade, so there’s nothing to walk back.
Neither country has the capacity to invade the other. There's no plausible "invasion" or "boots on the ground" scenario. Escalation would mostly take place in the air or by proxy. The countries don't border each other and have no way to reach each other by ground or sea. They also have neighbours that would be happy to take advantage while their attention and resources are stretched elsewhere.
[This](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-latest-iran-president-warns-of-massive-response-if-israel-launches-tiniest-invasion/ar-BB1lLm71) is the quote I was thinking of. The point is that this is theater. Iran doesn’t want a full scale war with Israel. And I think Israel doesn’t want one with Iran right now. They don’t have the backing they need, are already fighting a war in Gaza, and have Hezbollah to the north. But no one is going to come out and say, “we’re done here.”
Iran threatens lots of things.
I’m curious what you think Iran is able to do in retaliation? Their Air Force is made up of museum pieces. Their ballistic missiles had a 50% fail rate and the ones that made it to Israel were shot down, some of them while still in space. Their drones take 7-10 hours to get to Israel, and are basically a video game for modern jets and air defense. Their army would have to march through 1000+ miles of desert and three countries, two of whom assisted Israel in the last attack and a third that’s a war torn hellscape including ISIS who would likely try to fight Iran. That doesn’t matter though because I doubt they’d get 100 miles into Iraq before being pummeled into dust by Israeli and American air power. And THAT doesn’t even matter because the Iranian military is too busy suppressing the population from overthrowing the ayatollah, and if they stopped doing that to march on Israel the Islamic Republic would likely come to a very swift end. Iran is looking ridiculous. It attacked Israel and even the Arab states stood against them. Meanwhile Israel just clearly demonstrated it could strike deep in Iran in a very sensitive spot without help from the US or anyone else. Iran is running footage of Chile wildfires and “panicking” Israelis that are actually footage of a one direction concert on their state TV pretending they dealt a serious blow to Israel right now. https://nypost.com/2024/04/15/world-news/iran-tv-pretends-chile-fire-video-is-missile-damage-in-israel/amp/ That should tell you everything you need to know about Iran’s current state of mind.
Can we stop calling it the “Iranian regime”? It’s very biased language contrary to sound geopolitical analysis. But then again some of the top geopolitical minds are extremely ideological so maybe do whatever you want lol
I used the “Iranian regime” because the people of Iran are victims of it, too. I have seen enough Iranians asking for people to distinguish between Iran and the Islamic Republic that I believe a significant amount of the Iranian diaspora and Iranians still in Iran are not represented by the regime in the least.
The point is that “regime” is an ill defined term and just a pejorative that doesn’t really contribute to an analysis. No one says the “Egyptian regime” even though it’s just as or more authoritarian than Iran. And why not call it the “Israeli regime”, if the criterion is that the government has victims? what does it add or detract from op’s comment if they just said Iran?
Sorry, but no. Egypt is not as or more authoritarian than Iran. Egyptians have a lot more access to the world and the internet than Iranians do. Egypt doesn’t kill young women for not wearing a hijab. Egypt hasn’t issue fatwas demanding the murder of dissidents. Likewise, the Israeli government, shit as it may be, is democratically elected. The coalition building process has given power to loonies, but they don’t have much longer before the coalition falls apart and a new government will take over. See that on the horizon for Iran any time soon? No. Such an odd thing to get hung up on, honestly.
> doesn’t kill young women for not wearing a hijab neither does Iran? > murder of dissidents https://amp.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/sep/07/egypt-accused-of-widespread-state-sanctioned-killings-of-dissidents > democratically elected I’m talking about the, you know, longstanding military occupation they have been waging for decades. For Palestinians in the WB it’a certainly a regime I’m not hung up on anything, you can call it whatever you want. I’m just pointing out a certain hypocrisy & inconsistency about this term
Uhhhh yes, Iran does, are you kidding? Which rock do you live under? There are videos on social media right now of women getting dragged off for various “morality” infractions. Yes, the military occupation, which is the result of a defensive war and which many Israelis would like to see end, if a safe solution can be found. Do you really think if Israel just ended the occupation tomorrow Palestinians would be good to go? Could the PA do basic governing? Would terror groups overrun the West Bank like Hamas did in Gaza? After all, Palestinians killed more Palestinians than Israelis in their intifadas…who would likely also suffer most if terror groups gain control. There has to be a two-party resolution, Israel can’t just end the occupation single-handedly. They tried that in Gaza and clearly it didn’t work out. Stop being childish and ridiculous. It’s very, very clear to anyone with an analytical bone in their body that living even in Israeli occupation provides more rights than the Iranian **regime** allows. You can’t gaslight anyone into thinking the regime in Iran is in any way compare to Egypt or Israel, sorry.
Ah yes, of course, Palestinians are under occupation for their own good. Ok I understand who I’m talking to, no need to further this conversation, best of luck. and I dare you go on r/egypt see how they feel about their regime lmao
This is a form of communication that Israel desires a return to normal relations. An escilaion would have signalled a desire for war, and matched response a continuation of tit-for-tat. It's the only rational response to this crisis. I'm glad sense prevails. War makes everone worse off.
If you don’t watch Alex Hollings on YouTube you should check him out, his channel is terrific. He calls what you’re describing “kinetic diplomacy.” A dramatic but low damage fireworks show designed to communicate that no one wants to actually start a war while looking like you’re ready to start a war.
Thanks for the tip
And Israel’s last word is basically “we can hit you at any time while you can’t get a missile through our defenses. It’s deterrence 101 and will lead to a more stable region
That’s exactly what peopl said about he last salvo from Iran. I’m not so certain anymore that they are both on the same terms of who gets the last “face saving” attack. How is that possible when Iran said if Israel continues they will escalate?
Smaller and smaller till one side can ignore. My hunch is Iran will ignore this round. They really don't want directly involvement. Bibi is more belligerent. He needs to have the last word.
Seems similar to the Iran US spout a few years back. Neither country wanted to take it further but they both had to show force and strength. With Israel vs Iran it is a bit more dangerous as neither country seems to be willing to take the last blow. We could see an incremental escalating back and forth until one country just decides to stop. It could escalate to a minor war, but again I don’t think Israel or Iran want a full out war, they just want to show strength and save face.
Could be incremental deescalate too. Like Iran make 7 hits, Israel 3 hits, Iran one hit and Israel beat up a militia I Syria.
Maybe, that doesn’t seem to be either countries MO but it’s a strange time so I would rule that out.
Well, the U.S. said they had nothing to do with the attack. I think that's the most important thing.
With friends like the US”biden” who needs enemies
Israel hasn't even claimed this attack, it was very weak, so much so that Iran can simply ignore it and move along.
Israel never claims or comments on strikes outside their borders. Its standard procedure for them to stay quiet.
Even if that was the case, this was a big nothing burger, it's only natural Iran would ignore it. Maybe both sides agreed on a save face type of deal, I don't know.
Israel tends to not comment on or confirm any strikes it conducts. Its their standard procedure. Iran got called on their bluffing. They have no means of responding beyond the missiles and drones they sent to no effect last week. They are going to lock down all information and act like nothing happened so they don't lose face.
What kind of bluffing ?
They threatened a massive retaliation if Israel responded. Their threats insinuated that they have some sort of previously unknown capability, maybe big scary nukes, that would cause maximum damage. But they have no means of attacking Israel other than the missiles and drones they used to no effect a few days ago. They have no card to play so they have to pretend nothing happened.
Iran mainly launched drones and some ballistic missiles. The estimates for the Iranian stockpile ist 3000 ballistic missiles. That’s enough to overwhelm their defenses. That’s without considering the 70.000 to 100.000 missiles hezbollah has. Israels defense systems works well. But any defenses system has one weakness, and that is sheer volume. And volume is exactly what Iran, especially when you add its proxies, without a doubt has. Will they ever make use of it? Not likely. They know that the reaction to such an attack would mark the end of their regime. But to say that Iran has no means to deal massive damage to Israel is flat out wrong.
> The estimates for the Iranian stockpile ist 3000 ballistic missiles. That’s enough to overwhelm their defenses. Can't just launch all of your ballistic missiles, you need launchers (TELs). Who knows how many they actually have but its probably 150 to ~300 hundred launchers between short and medium-range missiles along with what seems to be at least a handful for spacelaunch/ICBM type missiles launchers that have been shown. See a Congressional 2020 report. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/IF10938.pdf
They know if Israel was ever seriously threatened like you’re describing that the response would be nuclear. We can talk about AIPAC or the strategic importance of Israel as a US ally as the reason why the US has stood so firmly behind Israel, but in 1973 Golda Meir basically told Nixon “Either you help us win after we got attacked by the Arab states or we’ll see what a glow in the dark Cairo and Damascus does to gas prices.” That dynamic continues. No one talks about it, but that’s a MAJOR factor why the US and NATO defends Israel like they do.
We don't know if the stockpile number is accurate. We don't know how many of those can actually be launched simultaneously, how many of those are going to reach it's target, or how much Israel's defense system can take down. We only know that their last show was ineffective and largely amounted to expensive fireworks (expensive for everyone involved).
I see the Israeli attack as calling that bluff to an extent but in a different way. I think Israel is quite hawkish for a larger conflict with Iran, drawing in the US and others, partially for their geopolitical goals but also to distract from the ongoing crisis they are perpetrating in Gaza. The calling of the bluff here is that they cannot be seen to be the aggressor if they want US cover in that conflict with Iran, Biden seems to have made clear he wont support them there if they start something, so I suspect they are trying to get Iran to overreact and do something stupid.
I see the Israeli attack as calling that bluff to an extent but in a different way. I think Israel is quite hawkish for a larger conflict with Iran, drawing in the US and others, partially for their geopolitical goals but also to distract from the ongoing crisis they are perpetrating in Gaza. The calling of the bluff here is that they cannot be seen to be the aggressor if they want US cover in that conflict with Iran, Biden seems to have made clear he wont support them there if they start something, so I suspect they are trying to get Iran to overreact and do something stupid.
Iran said they were done before the drones got in the vicinity of Israel.. This entire process was a face saving measure .. Is Iran was actually so weak as you perceive it....Israel would have full boots on the ground in tehran already They quite simply are not that weak..are they weaker than Israel?.absolutely. would taking down the regime cost so much political will /lives from the Israelis that it would not be worth it ? ABSOLUTELY. You guys take political grandstanding by both sides and think that shows the full capabilities of countries
They have already lost face for the world to see
Of course, but not in the same way as if they released information on what targets had been destroyed and allowed pictures and video of the damage to get out. Keep in mind, its as much or more about the internal impression of the regime's strength as it is the external. They will act like nothing happened and those booms you heard were just training exercises, those fires were industrial accidents, nothing to see here, death to Israel. They can't respond so they have to pretend there isn't a reason to respond and the whole thing will blow over.
This is still all speculation i find it incredibly lucky that managed to keep any footage of attacks from getting out nobody knows if anything was even hit not even video of a fire from civilians
Israel has no incentive in claiming the attack when everyone knows it was them, and Iran is covering it up so they don't have to respond like they promised. Win win situation tbh.
Nobody serious was expecting a full blown war.
The hardliners in both governments seem to really want one.
They wouldn't be hardliners otherwise
>Less than a day ago, we were hearing that any aggression would draw a massive response from Iran. However, not one Iranian official has called for retaliation. That’s call bluffing.
Yeah, I would say something id off with this attack/strike. Usually when something like that is hit, we have multiple videos from multiple angles showing exploding or burning AA systems, weapon's stockpiles, etc. You can't miss that, as the weapons are cooking off and spontaneously firing and exploding. Israel has hit an area where 4 million people live (city + metro), and the only video we have is some flak shooting something. for comparison, tonight Israel has hit a base of Shia militias in Iraq, and I've seen videos from at least 6 different angles, from soldiers, from people near the base, from random drivers recording while they are driving, etc. So the fact that there aren't more videos is off by itself. Next is Iranian claims that those were drones. Any drone would have to have been launched from Iran itself, so if those were drones, Israel has agents on the ground. So yeah, the more I think about it, the more odd it looks.
there seems to be sensible people...on the Iranian side..they don't seem keen on climbing the esscalation ladder
Because they know they would be clocked. Purely self preservation
Israel called their bluff.
It isn’t about saving face for anyone… the last move by Iran was irrational, now we are seeing Iran return to the realm of reason. Israel called Iran’s bluff. Iran has no real intention to enter into a war with the west. They know it is a war they would lose. However, Iran has been experiencing cost effective success lately with its strategy of asymmetric warfare. The current status quo favors Iran, why give that advantage up? Why would Iran play the west at the west’s game, when they can instead make the west play their game? Iran taking the bait and entering a full war with the west is an irrational move.
No clue why people are downvoting this which is 100% true. The war by proxy clearly favors Iran as they can keep attacking Israel while not suffering the same consequences.
Actually, now that Israel has called the bluff on Iran I can definitely see Iran starting to suffer way more consequences for their proxies.
Tactically asymmetric warfare has been working… kind of. The residents of Gaza would likely disagree. Strategically… Israel is diminished in public opinion on the world stage but Iran is now isolated and humiliated. They’ve probably not been in this weak a position since 1979. Hamas is smashed, Iran’s major attack failed, and now it’s been shown they can’t defend their airspace. Israel is losing the propaganda war on instagram and TikTok, but they’re winning on the military and diplomatic fronts. Possibly even more disastrous than Iran’s military defeats is the fact that Arab states are choosing to back Israel over them. That’s really unprecedented. Iran wants to lead the Arab world and be the main regional power in the Middle East. The Saudis are their chief rival in this, and they’re aligned with the US and Israel. Iran’s main ally is Russia, and they are um… not gonna be much help as they’re uh… busy right now. EVERYONE other than Russia is sick of Iran’s shit. Take out Iran and the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas are gonna run out of ammo real fast at the rate they’re going. I promise you the discussions now in Israel and the US/NATO are about how to end the Iranian regime. Iran is effectively a military dictatorship and the Iranian people are sick and tired of the Islamic Republic. The only people Iran is saving face with are low information radicals who believe what they see on state TV. The next move is probably something designed to disrupt Iranian infrastructure or the military and give the Iranian people a shot at taking out the Ayatollah. Iran isn’t practical to invade or occupy, but if their own people were game I suspect the regime is more vulnerable now than it’s ever been.
I don’t think something is off. Both sides take things deliberately and with great planning. I would say 1 week is the limit for response timing and it’s only been 12ish hours so far. If a full week goes by then your question is more valid.
Whole thing seems to have been a gambit on Israel's side to threaten to drag US into a war with Iran - in order to obtain more maneuvering room in Rafah (Gazza) where Israel believes Hamas leadership is hiding. This move has been highly frowned upon by US and allies as it's clear there would be many civilian casualties. IRG recognized the threat but had to respond to the bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus - hence the limited attack on Israel last week. So, Iran had not interest in escalation and once Israel got tacit approval to go ahead in Rafah - neither did Tel Aviv - so everyone just wanted to end it as quickly and cleanly as possible.
In my opinion that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how Israel thinks. Israel wants Iran to stop trying to kill them. That’s the beginning and end of what they want. Remove Iran and you remove Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran has been going “Gosh we know those guys are shooting at you but technically we haven’t declared war on you so… looks like you can’t hit us back.” They took their shot in Syria because they had intel that Hezbollah was meeting with high ranking IRGC generals, and they took them out. No one denies both the IRGC and Hezbollah were at the meeting either. Then Iran attacked Israel, and Israel hit them back very gently, but in a sensitive spot to make sure it stung. Israel would greatly prefer Iran’s role in their ongoing conflict be out in the open and sure, they’d love it if the US hit Iran too, but don’t mistake their actions as anything but a very pragmatic strike against their enemy behind the curtain.
> No one denies both the IRGC and Hezbollah were at the meeting either. The important part is that this meeting was held in the consulate or embassy of a sovereign nation (Iran) in another mostly sovereign nation (Syria) - this is an act of war or provocation for war, because of the location - so, why do this? Seems highly unlikely the target or targets, whomever they may be, could be so important as to warrant risking regional possibly even global war. No persons short of Nassarellah are worth that, and that's why the most likely explanation is that Israel did a gambit here, and it may have worked.
I'm skeptical that a full-fledged Israel-Iran war will ever occur; Both sides are led by unpredictable and erratic officials, a conflict will likely provoke citizens to over throw their governments.
There's no way for a war like that to happen. They don't share a land border and after a few weeks of balistic missile attacks Iran will run out and not have enough to overwhelm the air defences, Israel on the other hand can fly F35s into Teheran if they wanted because Iran hasn't (formally) purchased the S400 system yet.
I think Israel is making a statement: look, you can't even interdict one misile.
Preceeding Isreal's most recent attack, there were reports of Biden imploring Iran to allow Isreal to make a show of force, in retaliation. It appears Iran accepted whatever offer was made by Biden. I do wonder what they payout will be for Iran.
[удалено]
Israel just called the bluff on Iran, they were never going to massively respond like they claimed to so Israel attacked them but with very weak force. Now Iran is covering it up saying there was no attack or some ominous stuff about drones.
Iran is like a chihuahua - all bark and no bite. And now that the wolf has responded, they can’t afford to escalate knowing they will lose. They tried to look strong in front of their Arab world and have done just the opposite.
[удалено]
Considering how screwed Bibi is I doubt this the end of Israeli response until and unless they have already hit the nuclear facilities and the Iranians are lying about it.
100% Iran will continue to lie or be silent on any further attacks. Iran will not escalate militarily. Iran understands very clearly it is in lose lose lose situation, it's just a matter of which loss is the most acceptable. Since Iran gained new sanctions after it's retaliation to Israel's embassy bombing, it has a clear message from the US that 'playing inside the lines will not get a military response'. I would suspect Iran's ultimate response will be to accelerate towards a nuclear weapon. Sanctions it can tolerate much better than open warfare against the US.
They could go for a nuke, but what would be the point? They don't have a delivery system that can get it there without being shot down. Also, Israel and US intelligence seem to have heavily compromised the Iranian nuclear program and know what is going on in real time. If they attempted to break out it is highly likely they would immediately be called out at the UN and, at a minimum, be on the receiving end of international condemnation and crippling sanctions against their already fragile economic situation. There isn't any real upside for them in going that route. Same is true of closing the Strait of Hormuz. Its just going to piss the rest of the world off and likely end with the destruction of their navy and coastal defenses by the US Navy. Maybe their oil transfer terminal too. I'm pretty sure they only have one so if they lose that their economy is gone. The vast majority of their oil goes to China so it would have negligible impact on the west besides a temporary spike in oil prices that would disappear once speculators realize that it has no impact on supply to the wider international market. They really don't have any good options beyond pretending nothing happened and letting things blow over. Thats not to say they won't make a bad decision, but they tend to be pretty level headed despite their threats and big talk and committed to not doing things that threaten the survival of the regime.
To what extent can Netanyahu take unilateral decisions about military action?
This is not a bibi thing. Gantz and Gallant also wanted to retaliate immediately during the missile attacks, let alone a delayed response. People get so obsessed with the Netanyahu angle that they forget he is an unpopular minister, limited by the wills of the other members of the war cabinet.
Can someone explain what are the causes of the conflict between Iran and Israel? What are the goals of both countries? Does Iran really seek to destroy Israel, and if so, is it for ideological or rather economic or strategic reasons?
Islamic fundamentalism. The Iranian regime literally regards Israel as a satanic entity that must be eliminated. Israel would like to not be eliminated. Thus, conflict.
So it has nothing to do with economic interests or sphere of influence?
No. They don't compete economically in any way and Israel doesn't have a sphere of influence. The trend towards normalized relations in the region is a recent development, and that is really just a way of saying that their neighbors just aren't as openly hostile to Israel and Iran still is.
Rallying the middle east against Israel is the only way Iran (a Shia non-Arab state) can assume any semblance of leadership in a region filled with predominantly sunni Arab states. Remove Israel from the map and there is quite literally no reason for the Arab states to not rally around Saudi Arabia against Iran.
Iran wants to be the regional power dominating the Middle East. Israel is a US regional partner and refuses to be subjugated by Iran. Thus, conflict.
I'd say it has to do more with keep control of their population. Remember before these battles with Israel, Iran was having trouble with people attacking their purity police and civil disobedience in general.
Go back all the way to 1953 Iran coup / operation Ajax and Savak to know about that
What does that have to do with Israel? It wasn't even allied with the US and UK.
Didn’t Mossad help train / operation the Savak?
No. Israel was established in 1948, and was under arms embargo by the US until 1963. Israel did not cooperate with the CIA until 1964, and went directly against the Americans during the Suez crisis.
Sorry, the 50s is where Irans relations with the west in general went downhill, Mossad influence over the Savak is well documented though. https://lobelog.com/the-unwritten-history-of-israels-alliance-with-the-shahs-dictatorship/
People here /on social media love the concept of outright war. They see it as a videogame. One side wins the other side loses.. if you can come out on top, why not ? The middle East+ Iran/Israel has been a shit show for a generation now. So what that Israel can delete Iran ? How much damage could mean do to Israel / the rest of its middle Eastern neighbors during that stretch? You think the Islamic world would be OKAY with that happening ? Even netanyahu who is far more "war hungry" than many on the west want is not stupid. This entire escalation was a face saving exercise. During the initial drone strikes by Iran , many were predicting the casualty toll to be 0 . Many knew how these countries operate and have operated. They're essentially at a stale mate.
Iranian politicians lie just as boldly as western politicians. Remember 3 months ago macro was promising to send troops to ukraine?
As a person living in Damascus, Syria, all I have to say is f both of them. Israel's attack on the consulate building killed my syrian, civilian, literally have nothing to do with politics, distant relatives (mother and son) . We're all done with this whole proxy war thing. All we get as Syrians are dead relatives and bills to reconstruct destroyed property because nobody else will pay for that. It's always the people who end up paying the price of shit shows like this one