5

Nov

World  Disapproval To Escalate War Halts Israeli Counter attack on Iran

image

Dr Salim Khan

A person with a beard and glasses Description automatically generated

Mumbai | Tuesday | November 5, 2024

Following the Iranian missile attack on Israel on October 1 last, a wave of speculation began worldwide. Many believed that Israel, under Prime Minister Netanyahu, would launch a significant retaliatory strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which would have devastating effects on Iran’s economy and oil reserves. Observers even suggested Iran’s economy might collapse under such an assault. However, some remarked that if they had noticed the hesitation in Netanyahu’s initial response, they may not have predicted an immediate counter-attack. Surprisingly, though Israel’s military quickly responded to Gaza within 25 minutes after past provocations, this time it seemed to be taking its time, remaining uncertain for several weeks.

Following the Iranian strike, renowned defence analyst Frank Gardner suggested that Israel was unlikely to demonstrate the restraint it had shown in a similar situation last April when it had been pressured by international allies to hold back. Nevertheless, the Israeli government remained undecided on immediate retaliation for nearly a month. Former Israeli intelligence officer Avi Melamed also anticipated a swift Israeli response against Iran, but Israel did not take the expected measures. Some analysts speculated that Israel might have had a plan to respond to Iran for some time, waiting only for the right moment to act. However, this, too, did not come to fruition.

Iranian bases from which the missiles were launched seemed to be logical targets for retaliation, including their command and fuelling facilities. Israeli intelligence agencies reportedly wanted to target specific Iranian officials who might have ordered the strikes. Yet, none of these ambitions materialized, and those bases and officials went unharmed. For Israel, one of its primary concerns continues to be Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which Israel has long viewed as an existential threat, repeatedly expressing its intent to dismantle it. This desire is shared by some of Israel’s international allies, particularly in India, where support for dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities is widespread. For example, Indian media outlets like NDTV broadcasted an analysis of the situation, highlighting Israel’s predicament and its struggles in response to Iran.

Article at a Glance

Following the Iranian missile attack on Israel on October 1, international media speculated that Israel would retaliate decisively against Iran's nuclear facilities and oil reserves. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's restrained response suggested hesitation, as Israel took 25 days to act, a stark contrast to its usual swift military responses. Analysts, including former Israeli intelligence officer Avi Melamed, expected immediate retaliation, but Israel refrained from targeting Iranian military sites or officials responsible for the attacks.

While Iran launched over 180 ballistic missiles towards Israel, claiming success in hitting military targets, Israel's retaliatory strikes reportedly had limited impact. Life in Tehran remained largely unaffected, with Iranian officials showcasing the resilience of their air defence systems. This exchange has shifted perceptions of power dynamics in the region, with Iranian representatives framing Israel as weak and overly dependent on U.S. support. Ultimately, Israel's delayed response reflects both strategic caution and the complexities of its international alliances.

Israel’s hesitation seems largely tied to the lack of strong international support for military escalation. Reportedly, U.S. President Joe Biden refused to back a full-scale Israeli response against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, urging instead that any Israeli action be minimal and more symbolic than strategic. This caution resulted in a more tempered Israeli response than anticipated. After all, Iranian attacks included over 180 ballistic missiles launched toward Israel. In the months prior, Israel had already faced drone and missile strikes from Iran, following an attack on the Iranian Council House in Damascus. Thus, the new missile strike was the second major attack from Iran in a relatively short period, adding further pressure on Israeli decision-makers.

Initially, Israel asserted that the recent Iranian missile attack had been completely neutralized. However, this claim was soon revised. Israeli sources then claimed that most of the missiles had missed populated areas, landing without causing damage. Ultimately, Israel acknowledged that a few missiles did hit military bases, though it reported no casualties or serious damage. This discrepancy led many to question why the bases were unmanned. Iran, however, reported a more effective strike, stating that 90% of its hypersonic missiles reached their targets, striking three Israeli military installations.

Israel’s retaliatory measures, while aggressive, reportedly failed to cause significant damage to Iranian targets. Iranian authorities even released footage showing their air defence systems intercepting Israeli missiles, successfully preventing any substantial damage. According to Iranian reports, their air defences in Tehran, Khuzestan, and Ilam provinces were effective in intercepting the missiles, though two Iranian soldiers were reportedly killed. Iran’s response was widely broadcast across its state media, which claimed that day-to-day life in Tehran continued unaffected by the conflict.

In response, Israel claimed it targeted approximately 20 Iranian locations, but Iran quickly countered, showing video footage from its airports to prove that no critical damage had occurred. Iranian officials maintained that any sounds heard in Tehran were merely their defence systems countering the Israeli strikes. Various international media outlets, especially those in the Arab world, echoed the Iranian narrative, emphasizing the effectiveness of Iran’s air defences. For example, Iraq’s Al-Ahd News and Jordan’s Algad channel praised Iran’s air defence as decisive and well-coordinated. Similarly, Russian media outlet Rusiya Al-Youm reported that explosions in Tehran subsided once the air defence system was fully activated. Egyptian media, such as Al-Misrawi, broadcast clips of Iran’s defence system intercepting missiles, underscoring Iran’s resilience in countering Israeli aggression.

Supporters of Iran’s response voiced their satisfaction with what they saw as Israel’s strategic weakness. Sayyed Abbas Mousavi of Iraq’s Najba movement remarked that the Israeli attack was futile and served only to reveal Israel’s vulnerabilities, despite its substantial international support. He described the assault as “foolish” and underscored what he saw as Israel’s dependency on American backing. For Mousavi and other critics, the incident highlighted what they considered Israel’s dependence on U.S. support, asserting that Israel repeatedly relies on American aid when facing regional resistance groups, such as Hamas, over the past year.

The escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran remains a complex issue, deeply entangled with geopolitical alliances, military posturing, and regional power dynamics. With Israel constrained by both international diplomatic pressures and regional defence realities and with Iran resilient against Israel’s retaliatory measures, the conflict between these nations continues to reflect the broader tension in the Middle East.

**************

  • Share:

About Us

We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts..

Contact Us

Contact Info

  • 70, Gyan Khand- 4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh.
  • +91-9810533682
  • info@mediamap.co.in
  • Week Days: 09.00 to 18.00 Sunday: Closed