Iran's direct attack on Israel resets regional power balance

It also took its assault across borders, targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon and other strikes across Syria. But it was the Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus that was the final straw for Iran. It was left with no choice but to carry out a decisive strike to prove that its deterrence was not absolutely lost.

Up until that point, the US had effectively neutralised Iran-backed groups in the region. In Iraq, the US carried out a string of attacks on Iraqi militias after the killing of three US soldiers at an American base east of Jordan on 28 January.

A US-led international coalition also succeeded in containing Houthi attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea through Operation Prosperity Guardian.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah's ability to curb Israel's campaign against Hamas has been limited. Instead, it has itself lost 300 fighters, and several Lebanese villages in the south of the country have been destroyed.

These combined developments have shown just how much Iran's deterrence had waned, particularly after the assassination of General Mohammad Reza Zahedi and his associates at the consulate in Damascus.

Assertive response needed

This is why Iran felt the need to restore its deterrence with an assertive response.

Western media reports suggest that in the 12 days between Israel's strike on the Iranian consulate and Tehran's retaliation, diplomatic contacts were made through various intermediaries, offering concessions and even threatening Iran if it reduced the intensity and scope of its response.

However, none of these convinced or scared Iran enough to scale back its attack, which involved 170 drones and 30 cruise missiles, none of which entered Israeli territory, and at least 110 ballistic missiles.

Nonetheless, the attack was not meant to inflict widespread casualties. Israeli sources reported 31 minor injuries and one serious injury.

It's important to note that Iran's purported allies—particularly Russia and China—refrained from both military and political intervention. Moscow, for instance, merely issued a tepid statement calling for restraint.

Consequences

In contrast, Iran's attack renewed Western backing for Israel. It is no secret that US and UK forces (whose aircraft took off from Cyprus), and perhaps other Western nations, actively participated in the defence of Israel.

However, it came at a hefty price. According to Israeli estimates, the night of combat involving F-35 aircraft, Iron Dome, and David's Sling systems cost around $1.33bn, excluding expenses related to the intervention of the US and other Western allies.

While Israel could possibly absorb the costs incurred by interventions like those seen on 13 April, Iran must weigh the economic ramifications despite the lower costs associated with the drones and missiles it deployed compared to those utilised by Israel and the United States.

Such munitions are ineffective against a formidable and prepared enemy and do not compensate for a lack of conventional air power. It seems clear that Iran's stockpile of weapons is no match for the technological superiority of Israel and the West. Hezbollah will also be taking note of this superiority.

Circling back to the renewed Western backing, there is also a fear that the Iran attack could restore Western backing for Israel, which had, thus far, warned Israel against an invasion of Rafah.

There are many unknowns, but what is clear is that the power balance in the region has been reconfigured. Assessments of political relationships and national military deterrents are in flux, and diplomacy is at a near standstill.