The United States is grappling with a “new equation” of direct attacks between Iran and Israel

(CNN) — Hours before Israel launched a drone strike against Iran on Thursday night, Israeli officials warned their American counterparts in Washington: An attack was being prepared, they said, and they hinted without sharing concrete details. Given that this will happen in the future. According to a senior US official, day.

It was exactly the message the Biden administration hoped it would receive. Throughout the week, US officials had urged Israel not to retaliate for Iran’s unprecedented attack five days earlier, when hundreds of missiles and drones were fired at Israel from inside Iran.

U.S. officials were concerned that any Israeli retaliatory attack could lead to a spiral of direct action between the two countries that could spin out of control.

“We do not condone (Israel’s) response,” the senior official said, referring to the warning the United States received before Thursday’s Israeli attack.

Analysis Iran and Israel avoided open war for the time being

The attacks in recent days have U.S. officials concerned that the barrier that once existed between Israel and Iran has broken down, leading to a new form of direct confrontation that is infinitely more volatile and difficult to predict. Could.

Iran’s response will now be a key test of whether the two countries have entered the initial phase of conflict or whether both sides may take a step back.

There are some signs that the situation may be easing.

US intelligence services have long believed that neither Iran nor Israel are in any mood for open war. It appeared to be designed to limit Israel’s retaliation, targeting a military base about 275 kilometers from Tehran and leaving intact two nearby facilities that are part of Iran’s nuclear development program. Are important part.

A regional intelligence source with knowledge of Iran’s response to the attack told CNN that direct state-by-state attacks between the two countries have “ceased.” According to this person, a response from Iran was not expected.

“There are no signs of further escalation at this time,” the senior US official warned, warning that things could change. “But all indicators suggest a step back.”

Yet, US officials are well aware that in the wake of the unprecedented exchange of direct fire, it may be more difficult than ever to predict how Iran will respond to perceived provocations.

Iran’s massive attack on Israel last week marked the first time it fired directly at Israel from within its borders, breaking years of intuition by the United States and its allies about the limits of Iranian militancy and willingness to attack Israel directly. The notion is gone.

Iranian officials have publicly stated that Iran’s policy toward Israel has changed.

Hossein Salami declared, “We have decided to create a new equation, and that is that if from now on the Zionist regime attacks our interests, properties, personalities and citizens, we will at any time expel those from the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Will attack.” the top commander of Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps told Iranian state television after last weekend’s attack.

And hours before Thursday night’s Israeli retaliatory strike, Iran’s foreign minister told CNN’s Erin Burnett that if Israel retaliated, “the next response from our side will be immediate and at the highest level.”

CIA Director Bill Burns on Thursday in Dallas at the George W. “I have rarely seen a more inflammable moment (in the Middle East) than the present,” he said at the Bush Presidential Center.

long war in the shadows

To some former US officials deeply familiar with the Iranian regime, Iran’s unprecedented direct attack last weekend makes sense given its failure to compete with Israel in a long-running shadow war that has left many of its commanders dead. .

Israel has carried out several successful strikes against Iranian military leaders throughout the region and even against some officials within Iran’s own borders. On 1 April, an Israeli strike on what Iran claims is an embassy in Syria killed seven officials, including two senior Iranian commanders.

“Imagine the increasing pressure on the (Iranian) system,” said retired Gen. Frank McKenzie, former commander of U.S. Central Command. “‘Israel kills our people and doesn’t pay any price? I think that’s an important factor.’

McKenzie and other analysts suggested that, for Iran, the April 1 attack in Syria was an escalation that further escalated an already volatile situation and that its leaders believed it was necessary to deter future Israeli actions. A stronger response than usual was required.

According to Jonathan Panikoff, a former intelligence analyst specializing in the region, one of the killed commanders, Mohammad Reza Zahedi, was the connective tissue between Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah, Iran’s largest and most capable ally.

On the eve of Iran’s firing of missiles and drones against Israel, US officials remained convinced that Iran was likely to respond through its network of allied fighter aircraft, as it had always done in the past. But when the U.S. and its allies began to see signs that Iran was moving missiles deep into its territory, it created a frenzy in Washington wondering what Iran was up to, current and former U.S. officials said.

It remains to be seen whether this change in Iran’s stance reflects a more permanent change in the thinking of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.

He said, “It is not clear whether Khamenei, 84, has changed his long-held strategic doctrine to avoid direct confrontation with Israel, or whether this is a preview of what a post-Khamenei “How might the military-led Iranian government behave.” Sadjadpour, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Perhaps the best parallel to the current situation is what happened after the US strike in January 2020 killed top Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani. Within days, Iran and any of its proxies fired dozens of short-range ballistic missiles against US troops at a US military base in Iraq. It was also considered an unprecedented step that could lead to a new and more dangerous regional paradigm.

In that case, Iran gave enough signals of its intentions that American troops could take shelter in bunkers and minimize casualties. No Americans died, although dozens suffered traumatic brain injuries, and when the attack ended, Iran sent a public message that the case was closed. The United States, under the leadership of then-President Donald Trump, decided not to retaliate further.

Assessing the real impact of Iran attack

In the days following the attack on Israel, some analysts suggested that Iran may have deliberately tried to avoid casualties in an effort to prevent the situation from escalating, although Pentagon officials strongly rejected that hypothesis.

On Saturday, Israel and its allies were able to destroy 99% of Iranian projectiles before they could strike. There was little damage and no deaths in Israel. Coupled with public and diplomatic signals from Iran in the days before the attack, similar theories about Iran’s intentions have circulated in Washington this week.

But administration officials, as well as McKenzie and other former officials, have refuted the suggestion that Iran was behaving this way on occasion. Officials and analysts said the scale of the attack itself suggests Iran intended to kill Israelis. In many ways, Saturday was a triumph of years of military planning for this type of hypothetical attack.

But air defense against such a wide range of threats is a complex and difficult operation, and although Israel and its allies were successful, current and former officials say that success was by no means a foregone conclusion.

“The Iranians used the crown jewels,” McKenzie said. “Their ballistic missiles, drones and ground attack cruise missiles. And what they launched was an exhaustive effort as best they could. It was not a signal.”

Now, Washington and the region await Iran’s response to Israel’s retaliatory strike.

Officials say the threat is very deep.

“Israel and Iran are going to start higher on the escalation ladder at every moment of future conflict and that is incredibly dangerous,” Panikoff said. “If Israel and Iran perceive a greater threat to each other, they are more likely to think they have to act more forcefully and aggressively.”