Iran launched a major attack on Israel on the night of Saturday to Sunday, a first incursion into the territory of its sworn enemy in the “indirect war” in which the two countries are engaged. While the international community seeks to calm things down in order to avoid an escalation of violence in the Middle East, does this attack mark the start of an open conflict between the Hebrew State and the Islamic Republic? Experts take stock.
“If Iran had wanted to open an all-out war with Israel, we would have seen Hezbollah and other groups supported by Iran in Iraq, Syria, Yemen […] enter into the conflict on a large scale,” says Thomas Juneau, associate professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.
However, the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthi rebels have certainly fired rockets and drones towards Israeli territory, without however becoming more widely involved in the operation. “It absolutely must be interpreted as a signal from Iran that we do not want escalation, that we do not want total war,” maintains Mr. Juneau. But it’s dangerous, it’s risky. »
“More than 350” projectiles, “ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, rockets and drones” were launched by Iran towards Israel, according to its army. Only a few ballistic missiles “entered and lightly hit” a military base, which remains active, said Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, who also reported several light injuries, as well as a 7-year-old girl admitted to the intensive care.
“It’s huge, it’s a large-scale attack,” says Thomas Juneau, who advises not to take this warning from Iran lightly. “We must not give the impression that “symbolic” means minor or marginal. »
Towards a response from Israel?
Now, should we fear a direct clash between the two rival nations? “Everything will depend on the nature of Israel’s response,” says Thomas Juneau. If Israel responds on a large scale today or tomorrow, there will be another Iranian response, that’s for sure. And this is where we enter into escalation scenarios that almost everyone wants to avoid, including Iran and the United States. »
A measured counterattack by the Jewish state, which would not hit Iran head-on and which would not occur in the short term, would bring us back to the context which preceded this weekend’s strike, according to the professor.
The nature of the Israeli response will certainly reveal its intentions, judges Mr. Juneau. “There are many people in Israel who think, and not wrongly, that in a scenario where Israel does nothing, today, tomorrow, this week, that would send a message of impunity to Iran. »
But for Thomas Juneau, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is more cautious than we think: “A scenario of total war with Iran, […] I still tend to think that he will be very hesitant, because it becomes extremely destabilizing and costly. »
“There appears to be a commitment from Mr. Netanyahu himself and from Israelis in general that no strike against Iran should be carried out without coordination with the United States,” says Sami Aoun, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Sherbrooke. “That, it seems, is clear,” says the man who also leans towards the hypothesis of a return to a “limited and targeted” war, although a counter-offensive on Iranian soil remains possible.
Save face
At the beginning of the month, Tehran promised a response to Israel after a strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus that it blamed on it. This notably cost the lives of two senior officers of the Revolutionary Guards responsible for the Quds force, responsible for operations outside the Islamist Republic.
“It is a war that was orchestrated, measured and prepared in advance,” explains Sami Aoun. The Iranians had already widely alerted neighboring countries of their response, and Israel was informed by the United States that the strike would not hit major cities or military targets, he says.
What, then, was this offensive for? ” The truth, [c’est que] it is not an open declaration of war, but practically, it is simply to save face,” according to the professor. “The Iranians felt humiliated and violated their dignity” after the attack on their consulate in the Syrian capital. They perceived that their image was tarnished in the Arab world, and even in the Muslim world, he continues.
Through this gesture, Tehran “regains a certain respectability in what is called “the axis of resistance”, that is to say its different militias”, concludes Sami Aoun.
Strategic gains
On Sunday, Israel boasted of the “unprecedented defense” it put up against the Iranian attack, along with the United States and several allied countries, including France and the United Kingdom.
“This was the first time such a coalition worked together against the threat from Iran and its proxies in the Middle East,” said Israeli army spokesman Daniel Hagari.
A strategic gain for the Hebrew State, believes Sami Aoun, for whom the success of this resistance brings to the forefront the solidity of its relations with the West.
Gathered by videoconference on Sunday, the leaders of the G7 countries “unanimously” condemned the Iranian attack, called on “all parties” to “restraint” and affirmed their “full support” for Israel, saying they were “ready to take measures” against Tehran “in response to new destabilization initiatives”.
At the same time, Israel reassures itself of the key support of the United States, its historic ally and with whom ties have recently been tested by military operations in the Gaza Strip.
“We see that the conflict between Biden and Netanyahu is “downgraded”,” says Sami Aoun, tensions with the Americans having temporarily vanished.
The Israeli ambassador to the UN also called on the Security Council on Sunday to impose “all possible sanctions” against Iran, after the attack on its territory.
In the eyes of the professor, this attack risks being used by the Jewish state in order to divert attention from the disastrous war in Gaza: “Israel, which has been considered an aggressor in recent months, will now take advantage of the image of victim. »
with Agence France-Presse