Israel And Iran Both Downplay Friday Attack
Israeli media cited foreign reports of an strike on Iran on Friday in the absence of official public comment, while Iranian officials and media played down the attack.
Israeli media cited foreign reports of an strike on Iran on Friday in the absence of official public comment, while Iranian officials and media played down the attack.
The Islamic Republic military officials spoke about small drones being involved, that they claimed were launched from within Iran, not even mentioning the "Zionist entity", Iran's term for Israel.
The strike in the central city of Esfahan (Isfahan) appears to have caused no significant damage and the muted way the story was told in both nations pointed to a determination, at least for now, not to further escalate their conflict.
In an interview with state TV, a person introduced as a resident of Esfahan described the explosions in the early hours of the morning as "nothing more than firecrackers".
The Israeli military and foreign ministries declined comment and there were no immediate public statements from senior politicians apart from hardline security minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, who sent out the one-word message "Feeble!" on social media platform X.
In fact, some commentators believe Israel will not launch a large-scale attack against Iran, trying to avoid escalation. It can continue its undeclared piecemeal sabotage and other attacks, a method many believe has been used frequently since mid-2020.
Israel has a long tradition of maintaining ambiguity over issues like nuclear weapons and intelligence operations and the silence appeared to be part of its messaging.
Israeli media cited reports from the New York Times and the Washington Post, which quoted unnamed Israeli officials as confirming Israel was behind the attack, but did not report official confirmation of their own.
Writing for Israel's biggest newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, before the attack took place, a columnist said an official had said Israel planned a "pinpoint operation".
He quoted a Bible story in which the future King David crept up on a sleeping enemy and cut a piece of cloth from his clothing as proof that he could have struck a deadly blow but chose not to.
"I think it is ultimately a cautionary message that Israel can respond and can get through to Iran if it wants, but it does not want to widen the scope of this conflict right now," said Hasan Alhasan, a senior Fellow for Middle East Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Iran's thoughts were spelt out most clearly by a senior Iranian official who told Reuters that Tehran did not plan a response now.
Iranian media appeared to play down the significance of the strike. In official statements, there was almost no mention that Israel - or as it usually says the "Zionist entity" - was behind it. State television carried analysts and other pundits who all appeared to be dismissive about the scale.
"There has been a remarkable fabrication to exaggerate the extent of the incident" the semi-official ISNA news agency said.
The apparent attack was the latest in a round of actions set off by the killing of seven Iranian officers in a strike on an embassy compound in Damascus that has drawn fears of a wider regional conflict spilling over from the war in Gaza.
Although Israel has never acknowledged that it was behind the strike on April 1, Iran launched a wave of hundreds of drones and missiles in response that was successfully warded off by the air defenses of Israel and its allies.
Iran's reaction also appeared to signal that it did not want the exchange to go further.
"That seems to indicate that Iran is seeking to step down off the ledge, minimize the impact of the attack, and perhaps walk back down the escalation ladder from here," said Jonathan Lord, head of the Middle East security program at the Center for a New American Security, a US think tank.
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi chose not to cut short his trip to the central province of Semnan, indicating that the country was not on high alert. In Israel, the Homefront Command issued no new instructions to the population.
Opinion polls in Israel have appeared to show no overwhelming desire for retaliation, with one poll on Thursday showing 48% in favor of responding even if it meant expanding the conflict with 52% preferring not responding.
"We're good, you can look around, we're happy here, not from the attack but I think the situation in the Middle East is complicated, but Israel will always win and everybody has to know that," said Pavlo Tzuk, a resident of central Israel.
"So, enjoy your day and hope people in Iran will understand we are not seeking for war, but we are seeking for peace, and we want to be here safe, so, understand that," he said.
(With reporting by Reuters)
“If the fake Zionist regime wants to use the threat of attacking nuclear sites to put pressure on Iran, it is possible and conceivable for the Islamic Republic to revise its nuclear doctrine and policies, and deviate from its past declared considerations,” said Ahmad Haghtalab, who is in charge of the security of Iran’s nuclear sites.
His remarks came a day after Zohar Palti, the former intelligence director at the Israeli spy agency Mossad, announced that Israel has many options on the table to retaliate Tehran’s recent missile and drone attacks and could even choose to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.
According to Haghtalab, Israel’s threats to target Iran’s nuclear facilities “are not from today or yesterday” and Israel has already been involved in “sabotage and terrorist acts” to stop Iran’s nuclear program over the past years.
One of the most significant attacks on Iran’s nuclear program occurred in 2010 when the Stuxnet computer virus disrupted the control systems of the country’s most sensitive and tightly watched nuclear facility in Natanz.
The Dutch daily Volkskrant reported in January that the malware, widely believed to be an American-Israeli creation, was delivered by a Dutch engineer working at the enrichment plant.
In 2020 and 2021, two internal explosions hit Iran's highly protected Natanz uranium enrichment facility, inflicting considerable damage. The attacks were attributed to Israel, although Iran's chief adversary never took responsibility. In November 2020, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, known as the father of Iran's nuclear program was assassinated in broad daylight near Tehran.
Further in his remarks, IRGC Commander Haghtalab threatened that the Iranian government can target Israel’s nuclear sites if the Jewish state decides to respond to Iran’s recent offensive on the Israeli territory: “The nuclear sites of the Zionist enemy have been identified and we have the information we need on all targets. In case of their so-called retaliation, our hands are on the trigger to fire powerful missiles to destroy specified targets.”
On Saturday night, Iran launched its first ever direct offensive against Israeli territory with more than 350 drones and cruise and ballistic missiles. The Israeli army announced that 99% of the projectiles were intercepted and downed.
According to IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, Iran shut down its nuclear facilities last Sunday over “security considerations.” He confirmed that the facilities had reopened within 24 hours, but with no IAEA supervision, as the agency decided to temporarily keep its inspectors away until the situation is “completely calm.”
When asked about the possibility of Israel hitting Iran’s nuclear sites, Grossi said, “We are always concerned about this possibility.” The UN nuclear chief also reiterated the IAEA’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.
Iranian officials have always maintained that Tehran’s nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes. But nuclear experts are almost unanimous in their assessment that enrichment to the levels and in the amounts that Iran has been doing since 2021 cannot be justified in the absence of a weapons program.
In February, Ali-Akbar Salehi, the former head of Iran's nuclear agency, implied that the country has everything it needs for an A-bomb: "We have [crossed] all the thresholds of nuclear science and technology. Here's an example: Imagine what a car needs; it needs a chassis, an engine, a steering wheel, a gearbox. You're asking if we've made the gearbox, I say yes. Have we made the engine? Yes, but each one serves its own purpose."
On Wednesday, an advisor to Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf hinted at Tehran’s military use of its nuclear program. “Iran has a nuclear program in addition to its missile program,” wrote Mehdi Mohammadi on X in what can be construed as a shrouded threat against Israel and its allies.
Meanwhile, Mohammad Marandi, a political analyst close to Iran’s hardliners, claimed that Iran has not yet used “its most advanced weapons” against Israel. When asked if Iran might use nuclear weapons, he said, “Iran is not like the United States which has and uses and has already used nuclear weapons.”
In November, an IAEA confidential report indicated that Iran has enough uranium enriched to up to 60% for three atomic bombs.