Opinion: Iran’s Response to Israel was Expected, Preventable, Retaliatory

People climb on the debris of an Iranian missile intercepted by Israel, near Arad, southern Israel, Oct. 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Ohad Zwigenberg)

On Tuesday, October 1, Iran launched around 180 missiles into Israel. These strikes are a direct response to escalations between Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah, one of Iran’s regional proxies. Iran stated that the missile attacks were a result of a string of recent killings by Israel, particularly Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran this July.

Prior to Iran launching the missiles, Israel began its ground operation in southern Lebanon with attempts to weaken Hezbollah by dismantling militant infrastructure and lowering its threat to Israeli border communities. 

In its strike, Iran targeted Israel’s military capabilities including Mossad, Israel’s intelligence headquarters, and a couple of air bases. The majority of the missiles were intercepted by Israel and the United States prior to them reaching their target locations. Only a small number fell in the central and southern parts of the state. 

No Israeli citizens were killed, however, two people sustained minor injuries resulting from falling debris, and one Palestinian civilian was killed in the West Bank. 

This was not an unprecedented event, as Iran has retaliated against Israel in the past. In April, Iran launched over 300 drones and missiles into Israel as a military response to an Israeli airstrike hitting Iran’s consulate in Damascus two weeks prior. Israel’s initial strike on the consulate killed 13 people, including top Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Major General Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his deputy.  This marked the first time that Iran fired directly into Israeli state lines. Almost all of the missiles were intercepted, and the few that fell into the country damaged an Israeli military base and hit a 7-year-old girl who endured severe injuries. 

Given Iran’s strikes in April, Israel knew that Iran had the capabilities to attack Israel and that it was willing to do so if pushed past their limit. Netanyahu knew that by continuing to target those associated with Iran and its proxies, it might push Tehran to retaliate, yet he continued to do so rather than seeking alternative strategies to advance his initiatives.

Despite this, Iran’s attack was carefully calculated. Iran knew that its missiles would likely be intercepted prior to them reaching their target, just as they had been in April. Since Iran knew its missiles would likely cause little damage, one can conclude that their response was done as a way to send the message that Iran would not continue to tolerate Israel killing its operatives and high-ranking officials rather than to cause harm to civilians. Moreover, Iran claims it also made an intentional effort to not target civilians, unlike what has been seen from Israel’s fronts in Lebanon and Gaza. 

Regarding the attack, Iran stated that it carried out a “‘legal, rational, and legitimate response to the terrorist acts of the Zionist regime.”’ Despite the horrors of war and such attacks, Israel, with US backing and superior intelligence and defense capabilities, shouldn’t be shocked when Iran, a state funding and backing Hezbollah, finally retaliates after months of combat between the group and Israel. 

When observing the conflict from a wider angle, it is clear that Hezbollah is fighting for a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and Iran is providing support to Hezbollah. There have been minimal efforts to provide peace in Gaza, and ceasefire negotiations have fallen through as a result of both parties. 

However, if a ceasefire had been implemented earlier on, Hezbollah would likely not have escalated its attacks against Israel, and subsequently, Iran would not have felt the need to strike Israel. This is reiterated by the vice president of the Quincy Institute For Responsible Statecraft, a think tank in Washington, DC, who stated that if there had been “a real effort” for a ceasefire in Gaza early on… “we would not be in this situation now … If Biden had put pressure on Israel not to escalate, then his efforts to stop the others from escalating would be more successful. Instead, he decided to enable Israeli escalation and protect it.”’ 

Missiles launched from Iran towards Israel streak across the night sky as seen from Deir al-Balah, Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2024. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana)

Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, declared, “We support the efforts for a ceasefire, provided that first, the rights of the Lebanese people are respected and it is accepted by the [Hezbollah] resistance, and second, that it comes simultaneously with a ceasefire in Gaza.” He added that if Israel were to strike Iran, the country would retaliate in a much harsher manner. The Foreign Minister described its strikes as ‘“legitimate self-defense based on the UN Charter.”’ 

“Unlike Israel, which targets residential areas, we only attacked military centers …We do not intend to continue the attacks unless the Zionist regime chooses to continue its attacks,” Araghchi added. 

Though many view Iran’a attack as a means of escalation, Denijal Jegic, a professor at the American University in Beirut, offered the perspective that “Washington and its proxies are protecting Israel from any accountability while making sure Netanyahu can continue to commit genocide in Gaza and colonial violence throughout the region and confront anyone who attempts to intervene … Iran’s measured response cannot be understood as an escalation – but rather as an attempt to deter the Israeli regime’s continuous daily escalations in the region.”’ Given Iran’s public statements, it does seem like it is extremely goal-oriented in the sense that it is not randomly striking Israel at any given moment. Rather, Iran seems to strike at times when it believes it will send a strong message to Israel, especially at key moments in the war in Gaza. If Iran only wanted to escalate tensions, one would observe much more frequent strikes, instead, Iran’s attacks can be viewed as almost one-off, direct acts. 

Despite these explicit warnings, Israel has made it clear it will respond to Iran’s attack. Israeli Prime Minister Netenyahu then declared that “‘Iran made a big mistake this evening, and it will pay for it … Whoever attacks us, we will attack them.”’  As of now, Israel has stated its retaliatory attack could target oil-production facilities in Iran as well as other strategic sectors such as nuclear facilities.  

Iran re-emphasized “‘should the Zionist regime dare to respond or commit further acts of malevolence, a subsequent and crushing response will ensue.”’ It will be interesting to observe how Israel will frame the scenario if a deadlier attack from Iran were to occur as a result of Tel Aviv retaliating against Iran, seeing as Iran did warn Israel a deadlier strike would take place. The consequences of Israel and Iran exchanging fire would mean heightened tensions and possibilities of a broader regional conflict which would likely cast a shadow on the now year-long Hamas-Israel war.