7 questions to understand the situation in the Middle East after Iran’s attack on Israel and what can happen now – 2024-04-16 14:19:22

Iran launched an unprecedented attack against Israel on Saturday in a new escalation of the turbulent situation in the Middle East.

Iran’s offensive is in retaliation for an Israeli attack on its consulate in Damascus, Syria, which killed an Iranian military commander earlier this month.

Following the attack, Israel said that, with the help of the United States, they intercepted the vast majority of the more than 300 drones and missiles launched by Iran.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant noted that the confrontation with Iran “It is not over yet“.

But Iran said the attack “achieved all of its objectives” and added that it would use greater force if Israel responded in kind.

To understand what can happen now in a region that is already the scene of the war in Gaza, one of the bloodiest ever seen in the Middle East, the BBC spoke with Lina Khatib, research associate of Chatham House’s Middle East programme, a study center in London.

1. Why did Iran carry out this attack now?

It is believed that Iran’s goal with this attack was to put on some kind of spectacle for the world to witness.

(The offensive) was extensively choreographed and quite limited and even Iran itself issued a statement after the attack in which it said: “we consider the matter concluded,” referring to the issue of retaliation.

This shows that Iran wanted to send a very clear and firm message to save face and be seen to be able to respond directly to Israel (after the attack in Damascus).

But it is clear that Iran definitely does not want the matter to be an escalation of tensions.

2. Israel said that “the confrontation with Iran is not over.” Is there a danger that either side will launch another attack in a new escalation?

We are in a very dangerous moment because it shows the audacity of Iran, as described by Western politicians.

I think that Iran is a country that is feeling very vulnerable militarily in the face of Israel and the United States, and that vulnerability often translates into audacity.

So I don’t think this is the end of tensions between Iran and Israel and this shows the importance of Western allies presenting a comprehensive strategy against Iran.

Israel’s anti-missile system operating over Ashkelon

3. Was this attack a demonstration of the capability of Israel’s air defense system, which managed to intercept most of the missiles and drones launched by Tehran?

Yes. But I also think Israel showed Iran that it is not alone.

The interception of Iranian missiles on Saturday largely depended on the United States and also saw its allies in the region, such as Jordan and Egypt, help Israel defend itself against Iran.

That was very well illustrated after the attack and was a message to Tehran.

Likewise, Iran showed that it has significant military power but this power will not be enough to defeat Israel militarily.

4. But would the United States be willing to participate in an attack against Iran if Israel decides to carry it out?

I don’t think anyone is willing to do that. The Israeli response was already quite firm.

But also, I think that if anyone was rewarded by Iran’s actions on Saturday, it was the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, which achieved an important victory by successfully defending Israel after the attack.

5. Some analysts have said that it was Israel that began this escalation of tensions with the attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus in early April. Do you think it is like that?

I don’t believe it. This particular period (of tensions) is part of the broader picture that began on October 7 with the Hamas attack on Israel.

Shortly after that attack, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iranian-backed groups in Syria and Iraq also began attacking Israel.

So it’s about a broader context that goes beyond this conflict.

6. But other analysts point out that the United States often talks about respecting international laws and legal systems, and yet Israel was allowed to kill a person inside a consulate with a direct attack.

It seems to me that Israel cleverly engineered an attack that could be considered not to have violated any international law, because the building they attacked was supposedly not designated as official Iranian territory. That was the justification they gave.

Unfortunately, in this context of the war in the Middle East and in other conflicts in general, there have been very creative interpretations of international law and human rights laws, which have allowed all actors to continue doing everything they want to do. .

7. Is the goal of achieving some kind of normality in the Middle East now further away than ever?

Completely. Now we see more clearly than ever both the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, a conflict that has been latent for decades, and Iran’s interventions that are destabilizing the Middle East.

Unfortunately, both the United Kingdom, the United States and Europe have always ignored Iran’s destabilizing role in the Middle East because they have been focused on the Iranian nuclear program. And now we are seeing the consequences of “turning a blind eye.”

And the same has happened with the Israeli Palestinian conflict, which has been ignored for decades without trying to find a solution.

So really the only way to stabilize the Middle East is to try to solve these two issues together.