Iran vs Israel conflict
It was an act of power. According to reports, the Israeli military struck a military target close to the Iranian city of Isfahan early on Friday. Although there is an Iranian nuclear plant close by, early reports suggested that the strike did not affect it, and both Israeli and Iranian authorities appeared keen to minimize the damage. What meaning should we assign to the signals that are coming from both sides? Is this the final move in a risky game of global chess? Our specialists are investigating.
Interpreting the signals left by the strikes
According to Israeli and US authorities, Israel struck back against Iran early on Friday, hitting at least one military facility outside of Isfahan, which is located about 275 miles south of Tehran. Similar to how Israel's Nevatim air base looked to be one of Iran's principal targets during its attack last weekend, the strikes were directed towards an unidentified military base or bases in Iran. With the strike, Israel seems to be conveying three key messages.
First message: Although this is a symmetrical response rather than a proportionate one, it is enough for Israel to end this specific phase of direct military conflict with Iran. Israel's strike demonstrated to Iran that, in contrast to its massive uptick over the weekend, which involved the use of over three hundred drones and ballistic and cruise missiles, it is capable of striking and causing damage in Iran with far fewer weaponry thanks to its superior technological capabilities.
Second message: Israel is able to attack Iran's nuclear program. What Israel did not hit is precisely what would have been escalatory. A uranium conversion facility (UCF) and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center (INTC) are located not far from the site of the strikes; together, they comprise one of Iran's most significant and well-known sites, housing the nation's continuous nuclear weapons development operations. Unusually plain is Israel's message: Don't underestimate Israel's potential to successfully attack the Isfahan UCF and NTC.
Third message: Israel will not stand by while Iran or its allies attack Israel without consequence. No matter how little damage is done in an attack or how much Jerusalem's closest allies beg Jerusalem not to respond, Israel will retaliate against an attack on its territory. Israel sees this as necessary to reestablish deterrence, which has become progressively weaker since the terrorist attack by Hamas on October 7. It is now up to Iran to determine if Israel's response was successful in reestablishing deterrence in the short term.
.jpg)
Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian declared just hours before the Israeli strike that "the next response from us [Iran] will be immediate and at a maximum level" in the event of Israeli retaliation. In the end, Iran may decide to respond either directly or through one of its proxies. However, it also fears a big war with Israel. Iranian authorities downplayed the incident right after, with one saying that Israel's attack was a "failed and humiliating" drone strike.
What Tehran does next will reveal which of Israel's warnings were understood by Iranian authorities.
Iran, there's a call coming from within the residence.
According to Iranian reports, "small drones" carried out the alleged Israeli reprisal hit on a military base close to Isfahan, and Iran's radars failed to spot the drones approaching from across the border. In the event that this is true, the most significant observation regarding this strike is that it was probably carried out from inside Iran. This is a far more significant statement about Israeli reach than bringing them in by plane, and it should worry the regime's upper echelons. What is Israel saying to Tehran? "The house is where the call is coming from."
It looks like Iran and Israel are prepared to back off the brink at this point.
In the modern Middle East, the idea of "turning the other cheek" is very unpopular. It is safe to say that an Israeli response to the enormous April 13 hit on its land was inevitable, even though specifics of Israel's retribution against Iran will take time to surface. Now, the initiative is back in Iran's hands. Nevertheless, there are signs that Tehran and Jerusalem might be prepared to move away from the brink of a deadly escalation.
The Netanyahu administration was in dire straits if it continued to stand by while Iran launched hundreds of ballistic, cruise, and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) missiles against Israel. The sheer size of the Iranian attack—following Hamas's October 7 rampage—posed a direct threat to Israeli deterrence of its foes, notwithstanding an exceptionally high interception rate of incoming munitions. Israel's raid was designed to strike a compromise between the need to demonstrate its power and the need to continue having its friends stand by it as it confronts Iran's hostile actions.
According to a number of stories, Israel approached the issue surgically, focusing its attack only on a certain military airbase close to Isfahan and going to great lengths to omit nuclear sites from its list of targets. It appears that Israel's primary goal was to make it clear that it could do so if it felt it was necessary, rather than to actually harm Iran. Considering Israel's growing reliance on its leading ally, keeping the Biden administration informed was the appropriate course of action.
Iran's response, which included a post on X announcing that "the matter can be deemed concluded" in the wake of its attack on April 13, has suggested that Tehran is now attempting to terminate the current exchange. The Israeli attack has been downplayed by Iranian media, which claims that it only involved "small drones" and resulted in no injuries. Quickly after, commercial aviation was resumed. Both Iran and Israel may now claim satisfaction from their achievements and, more crucially, both can lower their posture thanks to dominant narratives.
The key question going forward is whether or not this particular incident has sparked a new stage in the conflict, with Iran and Israel turning their focus to direct confrontation on each other's territory. In this sense, the US-engineered regional alignment, whose performance was crucial in impeding Iran's plans to overpower Israel from the air, will surely have an impact on Iran's decision to take the initiative and not work through terrorist proxies.
What is still true is that the region will remain on edge for the foreseeable future due to a combination of volatility—chiefly highlighted by Iran's ongoing nuclear pursuits—and the constant risk of miscalculation, which appears to have dogged Israel's April 1 assassination of a top Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander in Damascus.
