Israel and Iran in 2024: Fire for Fire

25th December 2024

5 minutes read

Between response and counter-response, the conflict between Israel and Iran in 2024 unfolds in a selective rhythm, avoiding uncontrolled escalation while steering clear of a full-scale war with exorbitant costs.

Each side aimed to assert its deterrence and demonstrate its strength. Strikes were selective on one side and gradual on the other, resulting in a limited confrontation zone.
This zone established a balance of limited gains, as neither side wanted to bear the high costs of a total conflict. On the ground, the scale of losses did not justify a high-level response.

However, the psychological aspect played a decisive role in this game of response and counter-response. The initial targeting, whether by one side or the other, often marked a breach of red lines, prompting action to save face and achieve other goals.

Confrontation Episodes

Nothing raised more serious fears of a Third World War than Iran’s attack on Israel in response to the targeting of its consulate in Damascus.

An unbroken cycle of fire ignited violent confrontations in 2024, summarized in four direct mutual attacks, marking an unprecedented escalation in the history of clashes between the two sides.

– “The Honest Promise”: April 14

Following an unprecedented Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, which killed several commanders of the Revolutionary Guards, Tehran launched an offensive at dawn on April 14, named “The Honest Promise.”

In this attack, drones and surface-to-surface missiles were used simultaneously. However, the heavy presence of U.S., British, French, and Israeli fighter jets in the region allowed the majority of drones and missiles to be intercepted before reaching their targets.

– The Counter-Response: April 19

Israel’s response was not long in coming. Five days later, Tel Aviv conducted a limited attack using small drones targeting the city of Isfahan and an airbase, without causing casualties or significant damage, and without an official announcement.

– “The Honest Promise 2”: October 1

In response to the assassination of the former head of Hamas’ political bureau, Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran, the former Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, and a Revolutionary Guard commander in Beirut, Iran launched a major offensive on October 1, named “The Honest Promise 2.”

Tehran used hundreds of missiles, including hypersonic ones, targeting Israeli military bases. Many missiles reached their targets, causing damage but no fatalities.

– “Days of Response”: October 26

Israel’s response to Iran’s second attack came at dawn on October 26. Named “Days of Response,” the operation involved squadrons of Israeli aircraft attacking air defense systems and ballistic missile sites, according to Tel Aviv.

Tehran reported limited damage to military sites in Tehran, Khuzestan (Ahvaz), and Ilam, with two soldiers killed.

Tel Aviv also claimed targets hit in the provinces of Fars, Khorasan, Isfahan, and Kurdistan.

“Controlled Objectives”

As the world watched the missiles and drones filling the skies in both directions between Iran and Israel, there was little doubt among most observers that the Middle East was sliding dangerously toward an all-out war.

However, as the initial fear subsided, it gradually became clear that the confrontation did not justify such tension and that the objectives were far removed from the dramatic aura carried by those missiles and drones.

Analysts agreed that Israel was not seeking regional escalation but rather aimed to gradually weaken Iran without getting entangled in a direct confrontation that could deplete its resources and attract international condemnation.

On the other hand, Iran appeared to be asserting its power by deterring Israel and refusing to accept the attack on its consulate in Damascus. Consequently, its response was selective, aiming to control the risks of uncontrolled escalation.

Meanwhile, threats and warnings dominated both sides, followed by displays of Israeli defensive capabilities, interspersed with pauses to consider options for responses and counter-responses.

Strengths

Tel Aviv relies on effective leverage to counter Iran’s geographical advantage in terms of size. Its military superiority enables it to conduct precise and extensive operations. Israel depends on the efficiency and accuracy of its military capabilities, giving it a strategic advantage it leverages to impose its standards and influence without engaging in comprehensive conflicts that might draw international criticism and drain its resources.

Iran, as a regional power with competitive military capabilities, does not rely on direct military superiority in its conflict with Israel. Instead, it capitalizes on its geographical expanse and regional networks. In its confrontation with Israel, Tehran seems to balance its ambition to expand influence and maintain credibility, not only with its own population but also with the “Axis of Resistance,” while being mindful of the limitations of its capabilities compared to a technologically superior opponent.

Dimensions

In 2024, the confrontation between Iran and Israel encompassed several dimensions. Direct confrontation was the centerpiece of this year and the most dangerous milestone in the evolution of tensions in the Middle East.

The second dimension lies in the repercussions of the Gaza and Lebanon wars. The third concerns negotiations over the nuclear deal with major Western powers. Lastly, the impacts of these developments on regional security and Tehran’s role in the Middle East complete the picture.

However, given the critical developments on the ground, particularly on the battlefronts, these points remain the most crucial in shaping the confrontation between the two sides, as was evident after the ceasefire in Lebanon.

In any case, the confrontation between Tel Aviv and Tehran has not reached the point of no return. Thus, the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, even at the cost of Hezbollah‘s withdrawal beyond the Litani River, has contributed to eliminating the primary factors of confrontation between Tehran and Tel Aviv.

With its networks weakened, the phase of response and counter-response seems to have ended, as the causes have vanished and both sides’ objectives have been achieved. Iran can thus present itself as merely defensive, while Israel has showcased its military superiority, not just logistically but also by weakening Tehran’s networks in the region.

As such, statements from officials on both sides suggest that the current and upcoming phase will enter a cold war dynamic, where engagement rules retreat to the shadows.