Reading the Financial Times on the Iranian attack on Israel…this is what it revealed

The British newspaper “Financial Times” reported that “Israel launched its air defense interceptor missiles shortly before 2 a.m. on Sunday to confront a barrage of Iranian drones and missiles.” Sirens and explosions sounded throughout Tel Aviv, the southern Negev, and the northern border region. The Israelis, who had waited impatiently for several hours after being first warned that an arsenal of projectiles was heading towards them, rushed to shelters.”

According to the newspaper, “After more than four decades of hostility between the two arch rivals, Israel was subjected for the first time to a direct attack from Iran, and this attack brings the Middle East closer than ever to entering into a comprehensive regional conflict that Western and Arab leaders fear since the attack launched by Hamas in October 7, which led to Israel launching a retaliatory war in Gaza. All eyes are now on how Israel will respond to the unprecedented attack on its territory. Iran sent an Iranian retaliatory message of sorts in response to the suspected Israeli attack on the Islamic Republic’s consulate in Damascus on April 1, killing senior Revolutionary Guard commanders and striking what Tehran considers sovereign territory. But the response was greater than expected, as more than 300 drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles were launched from multiple fronts at Israel.”

The newspaper continued, “With support from the United States, the Israeli army said that the air defenses were able to destroy 99 percent of the missiles, and the material damage appears limited and no deaths were reported. But by launching such a massive barrage, the Islamic Republic sent a message that it was willing to risk its security by confronting Israel directly, and perhaps drawing the United States into the fight. It deals a strong blow to Western and Arab hopes to stop the escalation of regional hostilities and end the war in Gaza. For six months, Iranian leaders have made clear that they seek to avoid direct conflict with Israel and the United States, or the outbreak of an all-out regional conflagration.”

According to the newspaper, “Instead, Iran seemed content to demonstrate its hostility to Israel through the so-called axis of resistance.” Analysts believe that Iran’s priority is to ensure the survival of the Islamic regime by keeping conflict at bay. There have even been signs that Tehran has been seeking to calm regional hostilities since late January, when three American soldiers were killed when Iranian-backed groups launched a drone attack on a US base on the Jordanian-Syrian border. The Iraqi groups, which launched more than 160 attacks with drones and missiles against American forces in Iraq and Syria after October 7, stopped their attacks on American forces since February, although they continued to adopt attacks against Israel. In January, Iran held indirect talks with the United States in Oman. But Tehran’s calculations changed after the attack that targeted its diplomatic mission in Damascus on April 1.”

The newspaper continued, “The strike indicated that Israel is raising the stakes in the long-term shadow war it is waging with Iran, and it also dealt another humiliating blow to the powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard.” More than 10 military leaders and advisors have been killed in suspected Israeli raids on Syria since October 7. In Tehran, the attack in Damascus, which killed seven Guard members, including two senior commanders, was seen as an exaggerated Israeli provocation. After failing to confront the Hamas attack, Israel is seeking to consolidate its deterrent power. For its part, the Islamic regime is now seeking to do the same thing, as it does not want to appear weak in the eyes of its local voters or its regional agents. But rather than deterrence, the result is likely to be an escalating cycle of violence.”

The newspaper added, “The key here is how and when Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government will respond, and whether the United States, desperate to contain tensions but committed to providing “steadfast” support to Israel, is able to rein in its ally. From Israel’s perspective, Hamas was not acting in a vacuum. Instead, it views Tehran as the main driver of the Palestinian Islamic Group and other anti-Israel militant groups across the region, which have launched multiple attacks against Israel since October 7. In the months that followed, Israel’s goal was to restore its military deterrence and send a signal to Iran that the unwritten rules of the Middle East had been turned upside down: Not only would it hit Hamas in Gaza, but it would also be willing to escalate to weaken the militants. Others supported by Iran who threaten the Jewish state.”

According to the newspaper, “At any other time, the intense border clashes between Hezbollah and Israel would have been considered an all-out conflict.” But in today’s context, it has, so far, been considered containable, even as both sides hit the other’s areas deeper and deeper beyond invisible red lines. In reality, the Iranian attack on Israel was an attempt to re-establish the old rules of the game, but the fear is that this will provide a greater incentive for Israel to continue escalating the conflict with Hezbollah, Iran’s most powerful and important proxy of all. Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East department at Chatham House, said that Iran took a gamble, but believes that if it had not launched the attack, Israel would have continued to try to weaken Iranian forces and its proxy forces, especially Hezbollah.

The newspaper continued, “Without trying to reaffirm the red lines and trying to restore some deterrence capabilities, there was no end in sight to Israel’s deterioration campaign,” Vakil said, adding that much would depend on Israel’s response. If you decide to “escalate further and strike the nuclear facilities, we are in completely new territory.” If a full-blown regional conflict erupts, it will have far-reaching repercussions. Lacking the conventional weapons that Israel possesses, Iran has long developed a strategy of asymmetric warfare, using guards and an axis of resistance to strike its enemies and their allies.

The newspaper concluded, “The Middle East has entered a spiral since October 7, and the matter has become steeper and much more dangerous.”