The recent aerial confrontation between Iran and Israel has sparked global intrigue and scrutiny. In a calculated move, Iran launched a direct retaliation on Israeli territory, deploying a vast array of drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles. Yet, despite the scale of the assault, the impact was minimal, raising questions about Iran’s true objectives and strategic intentions.
The longstanding saga of mutual threats between Iran and Israel reached its climax when Israel launched an air strike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus. This episode claimed the lives of seven high-ranked military personnel from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, including General Mohammad Reza Zahedi. The shockwaves reverberating through Iran mirrored the impact felt when the US targeted Qassem Suleimani in 2020.
Following this attack, the world’s gaze focused on Iran, eagerly anticipating its response. Iran found itself cornered with roughly four options at its disposal. The first one consists of attacking an Israeli embassy in retaliation to the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus. A second option would have been for Tehran to leverage its close ties with Hezbollah and the Houthis and orchestrate an attack via proxy forces. A third choice would be to conduct a direct strike on Israeli territory. Another completely different course of action would be to pursue de-escalation by ignoring the aggression.
Iran opted for the direct attack, launching an unprecedented strike on Israeli territory on April 13, 2024, deploying nearly 300 drones and missiles. However, due to the considerable distance involved, most of these drones and missiles were intercepted and neutralised by US and British warplanes, with Israeli air defence systems handling the remainder. Only a fraction of the rockets managed to breach Israeli defences and inflict damage.
What kind of weapons were used in this attack?
Iran utilised over 300 munitions in its attack on Israel, comprising 170 kamikaze drones, 120 ballistic missiles, and 30 cruise missiles. Notably, among the drones deployed were the Shahed-136 and Shahed-131 kamikaze drones, which had previously garnered attention for their use by Russia in the Ukrainian conflict.
These cost-effective drones are equipped with a self-detonating warhead and a nose-mounted camera. Weighing in at 400 pounds, they boast a speed of 115 miles per hour and a range of approximately 1500 miles. Operating with a direct targeting approach, these drones remain airborne until given the command to strike, making them challenging to detect by radar systems.
However, despite their capabilities, their relatively slow speed necessitated hours to reach Israeli airspace, rendering them vulnerable to interception. Most were successfully neutralised by US and UK warplanes before posing any significant threat to Israel. The Shahed-131, an earlier iteration of the Shahed-136, is a lighter variant with reduced range and weight. In sum, the deployment of these drones ultimately failed to inflict harm on Israel.
In addition to the drones, Iran launched 120 ballistic missiles and 30 cruise missiles. Despite this significant firepower, Israeli officials reported that only four of these projectiles successfully reached Israeli territory, causing minimal material damage. Israeli media further detailed that a girl sustained injuries from a piece of shrapnel. Iranian media announced that the ballistic missiles employed included the Emad and Kheibar Shekan-1 variants alongside the Paveh cruise missiles.
While some of these missiles come from older models, both the Paveh cruise missile and the Kheibar Shekan-1 possess capabilities integrated into the Iranian military arsenal. With a range exceeding 1000 miles, these missiles represent significant threats. Nevertheless, only a handful managed to breach Israeli defences, resulting in limited material impact.
Was the attack successful?
Following Israel’s aggression, Iran found itself compelled to respond to assert its regional presence. The pivotal question arises: did Iran genuinely intend to inflict harm upon Israel? Examining the arsenal utilised in the attack, it becomes evident that Iran’s primary objective may not have been to cause substantial damage. Instead, the action served to bolster Iran’s standing both among its supporters and its domestic populace. Statements from Iranian news agencies and officials proclaiming the success of the attack further underscore this narrative. However, it is worth noting that while some sources claim Iran notified the United States of the impending attack, the US has denied such allegations.
On the other hand, it wouldn’t be inaccurate to suggest that Iran sought to test the efficacy of the Israeli air defence system through these attacks. While aware of the limited impact the slow-moving drones would have, Iran aimed to gauge the response of the Israeli Iron Dome to the ballistic and cruise missiles it launched. Moreover, the attacks served as a declaration of Iran’s capacity to strike Israel, signalling to Israel and other foes the extent of its weaponry.
Despite only a fraction of the missiles reaching Israeli territory, this outcome could be construed as a partial success for Iran. Yet, the primary achievement lies in Iran’s demonstration of its ability to orchestrate a coordinated barrage of hundreds of missiles simultaneously, showcasing its military capabilities to the world. Additionally, it raises questions about Israel’s preparedness in a scenario where the US and UK refrain from intercepting the incoming drones and missiles.
Following the US drone strike that claimed the life of Qassem Soleimani, Iran retaliated by targeting a US base in Iraq, resulting in no casualties among US forces. This suggests a deliberate strategy by Iran to conduct limited strikes aimed at avoiding further escalation of tensions.
Iranian President Reisi’s remarks following the attacks underscore this approach, characterising the attack as “successful” yet “limited” and “not comprehensive.” His statement indirectly implies a reluctance to exacerbate the situation, as he noted that “a comprehensive attack would spell the end of the Zionist regime.” Many experts highlighted Iran’s restraint, pointing out that Iran refrained from utilising other more lethal tools in its arsenal, mindful of the uncertain trajectory of the escalating tensions.