31.10.2024

Restraint for the moment

Israel’s latest attack on Iran stayed clear of nuclear and oil facilities. In turn Iran’s response has been decidedly muted. One thing is certain, though, writes Yassamine Mather, if Donald Trump is elected on November 5, everything changes

Early on October 26, Israel launched its long-anticipated attack on Iran, following the massive Iranian ballistic missile strikes 25 days prior. The Iranian attack had been in response to Israel killing Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, Hezbollah secretary general Hassan Nasrallah, and an Iranian commander.

Israel’s retaliation, although significant, stopped short of hitting nuclear or strategic facilities, targeting instead missile production sites and Iranian aerial defence systems across Ilam, Khuzestan and Tehran. Israel stated that it had struck around 20 targets - at least one was previously linked to Iran’s nuclear programme. Buildings were damaged at another site about 30 kilometres east of Tehran, which, according to experts, is the development and production centre of Parchin weapons and a military base in Khajir. Fabian Hinz of the International Institute for Strategic Studies says: “Khajir is known as the region with the highest concentration of infrastructure related to ballistic missiles in Iran.” Satellite images published a day after show evidence of possible damage to the airforce base in Isfahan. There are also reports that a storage unit at the Abadan oil refinery, located in the south-western province of Khuzestan, was hit.

However, we do not know the true impact of Israel’s attack. The Islamic Republic is not giving out any information. Some of the satellite images presented by the US, at times confirmed by BBC, do not provide reliable information. Some of the damage may be the result of debris or misfired defensive systems.

Speculation

The New York Times, citing Israeli officials, reported that the Abadan oil refinery was subjected to air strikes. Iranian officials confirmed that Khuzestan province had been targeted by Israel, while the Abadan oil refinery is the largest in Iran and, according to its CEO, can refine 500,000 barrels per day.

Despite earlier speculation, no senior Iranian leaders or nuclear facilities were targeted. Indeed, the Iranian authorities are keen to downplay things, claiming limited damage, with air defences intercepting some strikes, and confirming that just two soldiers were killed. The media and news channels in Iran showed pictures of cities with normal traffic, oil installations operating as expected and calmly announced that after Israel’s operations, the situation has returned to “normal”.

Following the attack, Iran briefly suspended some flights, but quickly resumed normal air services. In a statement, the government condemned Israel, citing its right to self-defence under the UN charter and warning of potential retaliation. Iran’s options include direct strikes on Israel, acting through proxies, which have been weakened, or targeting US interests in the region. All of these options could lead to further escalation. The Israeli military emphasised that if Iran were to escalate the conflict further, it would be ‘compelled’ to respond.

According to prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel has dealt a heavy blow to Iran’s defence and missile production capabilities. Meanwhile, Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, said that “the Americans have provided an air corridor” to the Israeli airforce. There is evidence that Israel used Iraqi airspace on October 26. The Iraqi government has announced that it has filed a complaint to the UN, calling the action a “flagrant violation” of its sovereignty. Meanwhile, leaders of Iran-backed Shiite armed groups have responded with a notably restrained stance, mainly advocating intensified diplomatic measures.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, instructed his officials that Israel’s attack should neither be magnified nor played down, and the military should consider how to respond. This was interpreted by some as a deliberate way of avoiding responsibility … or indefinitely putting on hold any response. This has intensified internal divisions, especially amid discussions over the country’s future leadership.

The ‘reformists’ in the current government favour engaging with the west to reduce tensions, seeing this as an opportunity to avoid escalation, while hardliners advocate a forceful response against Israel, despite the risk of further conflict. The core issue remains Iran’s future foreign policy direction. Other criticisms have also surfaced, with some critics accusing Khamenei of shirking responsibility, contrasting his current approach with his past insistence on direct control over military matters.

Khamenei’s advisor, Ali Akbar Velayati, has suggested openness in regard to cooperation with western countries, while conservative figures like judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei and parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf called for a clear, strong response to Israel. The government in Tehran is well aware of its current popularity in Arab countries and any response will take into account the possibility of maintaining this support.

Contrary to claims by rightwing exiles that any ‘targeted’ Israeli military attack will show the regime’s weakness, lead to mass demonstrations and the collapse of the Islamic Republic, in reality very little has changed in terms of internal politics. A short video showing one of the soldiers who died visiting his mother, who appears to be a modern-dressed, secular woman, has gone viral, prompting support from unlikely quarters among young Iranians.

The international response was mixed. Saudi Arabia condemned the attack as a violation of Iranian sovereignty, while the US supported Israel’s ‘right to self-defence’. France, the UK and others urged Iranian “restraint to prevent further escalation”. (Amazing how after a year of genocide, everyone but the culprit, Israel, is asked to show “restraint”.) The UAE, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Iraq expressed concern over the attack’s potential to destabilise the region, with Iraq denouncing Israeli aggression. Hamas also condemned the Israeli attack, framing it as a violation of Iranian sovereignty.

Russia and China

The United States and its allies have consistently accused Iran of aligning with Russia regarding the Ukraine war. Both the US and the UK allege that Iran has supplied Moscow with ballistic missiles and hundreds of offensive drones. While Iran officially denies this, an Iranian MP has indicated that these weapons are being provided in exchange for food imports.

According to some reports, Iran’s airforce has weakened after years of sanctions, and Russia appears to have recently delivered at least one light attack aircraft to Iran. In return for arms shipments, Russia is expected to veto any critical UN resolutions against Iran and to resist any military actions against the country.

For Russia, increased tensions in the Middle East offer an opportunity to redirect the west’s focus from Ukraine, potentially diverting resources to another front. However, the Kremlin is concerned about the possible impact of Israeli attacks on Iran’s transportation infrastructure, which is crucial, given Russia’s limited routes for oil exports given that it is under international sanctions. One of these routes, however, passes through Iran to India.

While Russia needs Iran more than Israel, it attempts to maintain relations with both. Israel has criticised Russia’s actions in Ukraine and its alliance with Iran, but it has refrained from sending military aid to Ukraine, despite repeated requests. Russia may worry that a stronger alignment with Iran could prompt Israel to begin supplying arms to Ukraine. However, an escalation in the Middle East might limit Israel’s capacity to do so.

The South Caucasus presents a complex geopolitical landscape, with competing interests between Russia and Iran. This region is increasingly significant for Russian trade and energy amid international sanctions. Azerbaijan, a neighbouring country to both Russia and Iran, plays a pivotal role, with its resources and strategic position, enhancing transportation links with both countries, while also maintaining close military ties with Israel, which has supplied it with advanced weaponry, including drones. Azerbaijan has allowed Israel to use its military facilities for intelligence activities against Iran, though Azerbaijan denies it.

Russia must carefully manage its relations with Azerbaijan, especially given the potential strain that any Israeli action against Iran could place on these ties. Russia, heavily reliant on China for technology and military components, often aligns with China’s approach. While China has long supported Iran diplomatically and economically, it remains cautious, avoiding direct involvement to protect its broader regional interests, including significant investments in Israel.

Ironically a few days before the Israeli attack, Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, who was attending the Brics Summit held in Kazan, Russia, met with the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, who pointed out that Iran is a country with important regional and international influence and a good friend and partner of China.

China’s approach involves verbal support for Iran without deep engagement that could jeopardise its relationships with other regional players. Despite continuously rising Israeli-Iranian tensions, China is unlikely to take a stance that would risk its economic interests.

Overall, the situation presents a complex web of alliances and strategic interests, making it difficult to predict how Russia, Iran and China will try to further their broader goals and ambitions. One thing is for certain though, if Donald J Trump is elected on November 5, everything changes.