An Israeli airstrike on Iran went down yesterday. it was launched from Israel to strike an Iranian air defense system provided by Russia. That is the assessment of Western and Iranian officials as the attack radiated all sorts of messaging between the two maneuvering regional powers.

The official account of the strike claimed the Israelis damaged a defensive missile battery near Natanz, a city in central Iran. This is as much about messaging as military action, so we will extract some of yesterday’s conversation on the post-strike assessment and try to figure out who is messaging what to whom.

That is where some of the other interests come into play, including the Russians, whose military equipment is brutally abrading the Ukrainians and equipping Iran.

What was messaging intended to accomplish? The Iranian Strike was intended to demonstrate a massive capability to launch more than three hundred rockets, both drones and ballistic, directly at the Israeli homeland. The attack was billed as a failure, as the Iron Dome defensive system performed well and the US, UK and Jordanians contributed to what was billed as a “99% Success Rate” in shooting down the incoming missiles. That is part of the messaging directed as us here in Washington.

The Iranian strike was intended to demonstrate a response to the killing of several IRGC officials at an annex to the Iranian mission in Damascus, Syria, early this month. The nuance to the response was that the Israelis struck from Israel on a target that at least ostensibly was was located on “Iranian Soil,” a status granted by whoever is running Syria at this moment.

The failure of the Iranian attack was significant, in that it demonstrated the inability of the Iranians to carry it out. Was that intentional? Some claim it was a measured response, and many of the “successes” in defense were a product of launch failures on the part of the Iranians.

The Israeli response to the Iranian Response is where the messaging went directly. The US warned Jerusalem not to over-react to the idea of hundreds of inbound missiles, and that a devastating attack, perhaps on Iran’s nuclear inventory, would be appropriate albeit escalatory. It would likely lead to another round of ‘thee strikes me” military actions, each lurching closer to a nuclear threshold.

The depth of the affair was becoming interesting. In the immediate aftermath of the Iranian attack there were demonstrations right here on our side of the Big River in Washington. They were not as big as others supporting the Hamas leadership, but their simple presence here was startling.

The messaging was muddled, since “Hamas” is the political entity that rules southern Gaze, not the Palestinian people, though they do have something in common. A look at the signage used in the demonstrations was informative. They were professionally printed and distributed, not the work of individuals. It was part of a messaging campaign to demonstrate global sympathy with the people of Gaza.

So, imagine yourself as Mr. Netanyahu meeting with his Cabinet. A natural response would have been direct retaliation on a variety of targets in Iran. Target selection could have been guided by the importance to the Iranian economy. Oil-related facilities would have represented a direct hit on the Iranian economy. That is something Washington does not support, so Israel was in an awkward position.

Striking back at iran’s nuclear infrastructure would have represented a direct strategic threat, and a day or so passed without resolution. What finally emerged was a “small strike” limited to an air defense site near Natanz.

The IDF used a fraction of the firepower Tehran had deployed in their attack. For the messaging part, it seemed to demonstrate restraint on the part of the Israelis. It was seemingly in keeping with the inability of the Iranians to successfully execute their attack and could be interpreted as a modest ‘tat’ to a failed ‘tit.’

A little deeper look revealed something else that was pretty slick in terms of the actual message to the actual leaders of Iran. The actual message being transmitted was by what target the Israelis selected. The place? Natanz, a key portion of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. They did not touch the nukes, though. They hit the Russian S-300 air defense system provided to protect them.

Weapon used to do so? Two Iranian officials said the strike successfully hit the top-end S-300 defensive system with a hypersonic domestically-produced missile called Rampage. The Iranians added that their air defenses “had not detected intrusions into its airspace.”

So, that was the direct message between the parties. From Iran: “We can launch a bunch of rockets at you, even if most of them might not work.”

From Israel: “We just showed you the capability to eliminate your best air defense system. Should we wish to take out your nukes, we have the demonstrated capability to do so with our Rampage missiles. You cannot stop us.”

That last part is the messaging not emphasized in press reporting. This exchange has been a reflection of subtle escalation and a certain misdirection. What will be next? We had been concerned about a broader regional conflict. But the relatively limited scope of Israel’s strike and the muted response from Iranian officials seem to have eased tensions. For now, anyway.

Copyright 2024 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com