The Enigmatic Attack on Isfahan: Israeli Gains and Why Responsibility Wasn't Claimed

"Israel" has not officially declared that it attacked Iran, despite the significance of such a strike to demonstrate its capability to target Iran at will, nor did Tehran consider what "Tel Aviv" did as a "real strike" and acted as if nothing had happened.

The Israeli Occupation has not officially announced that it struck Iran, ignoring recent statements from the Israeli Ministry of War on the matter, while Iran did not acknowledge an attack on it from abroad, describing the incident as a breach by small drones that did not cause material or human losses in Isfahan.

However, what actually happened was that Iran launched 350 missiles and drones at two military targets, one of them being the Nevatim Airbase, and the other intelligence and information centers, according to the Foreign Minister of Iran Hossein Amir-Abdollahian in an interview with CNN, while "Israel" remained silent.

"Israel" responded with strikes on similar targets, with limited drone strikes, and perhaps missiles, targeting the Eighth Shekari Air Base in Isfahan, a radar site, and possibly a secret missile base belonging to the Revolutionary Guards near Shahin Shahr, and Iran also remained silent.

For this reason, analysts described what happened as "a mysterious matter," and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on April 19, 2024, that "Iran's or Israel's statements cannot be trusted."

They considered what happened more akin to Tom and Jerry without any real military gains for any party, as the three parties, America, Iran, and "Israel," were previously keen on maintaining their interests, which would change if a full-blown war broke out between them.

They pointed to new gains that "Israel" may have achieved, especially with Iran leaking that it would not retaliate, amid fears that the price of these indirect arrangements, or who pays the price, would be Gaza this time, and Rafah.

What Happened?

On the morning of April 19, explosions occurred in the city of Isfahan, followed by statements about reports of an Israeli attack on Iran, as part of Israeli Occupation's expected response to the latter's targeting with hundreds of missiles and drones, in response to Israeli shelling of its consulate in Syria.

"Israel" has not officially declared that it attacked Iran, and the official broadcasting body, Makan, only spoke of: "an attack on Iran that international media attribute to Israel."

The Washington Post quoted an unnamed Israeli official as saying that U.S. Army carried out an airstrike inside Iran in response to its missile and drone attack on "Israel."

He believed that the purpose of the strike was to send a signal to Tehran that America has the capability to strike inside Iran."

Following this, the Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir posted on X, saying, "Weak" or "Ridiculous," in what appeared to be his comment on the attack targeting Iran, without explicitly announcing the Israeli Occupation's responsibility.

The targeting of the city of Isfahan, which contains nuclear facilities and an important military base, carries clear Israeli messages that "Tel Aviv" can strike nuclear reactors and any target in Iran.

However, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that no damage occurred at Iranian nuclear sites in the attack and emphasized that nuclear facilities should never be targets in military conflicts.

According to Western media reports, the attack was carried out with drones from inside Iran, Iran said it was three drones that "infiltrated" from within the country, not outside, and were shot down.

Experts in Iranian affairs speculate that they were launched from Kurdistan or that operatives from Kazakhstan entered Iran and fired them.

The attack was also carried out with missiles launched by aircraft from outside Iran, most likely from above Iraqi territory due to the presence of missiles on its soil that failed to complete their journey, targeting an Iranian airbase, according to Western newspapers and an Israeli intelligence site.

However, the government-owned channel KAN quoted unnamed U.S. sources as saying that "Israeli large aircraft were not part of the attack," despite the tracking of aircraft movement via ADSB Exchange, with two Israeli military aircraft flying over Jordan coinciding with the attack on Iran.

Reuters quoted 10 Israeli, American, and Arab sources as saying that the Israeli strike was carried out without using manned aircraft or ballistic missiles, and without targeting any strategic sites or causing significant damage.

Israeli writer Yossi Beilin, citing Israeli officials who briefed foreign correspondents, confirmed that the attack was carried out by drones rather than manned aircraft to minimize the risk to Israeli pilots and reduce the damage to the target (Iran).

Reuters affirmed that the Israeli attack on Iran was carefully calibrated after internal divisions and American pressures.

The New York Times stated that the muted reactions to the Israeli strikes on Iran indicate a halt to escalation.

Israeli analyst Anshel Pfeffer, writing in Haaretz, opined that the Israeli silent strike on Isfahan shows that Netanyahu lacks a strategy towards Iran, as well as Gaza.

He asserted that the Israeli attack on Isfahan was at best a temporary or alternative measure, criticizing Netanyahu's rhetoric about the Iranian threat, stating that when the moment of truth came, he had nothing to say or offer.

Iran: Nothing Happened!

On the Iranian side, the reaction denied the Israeli strike as if it did not occur. The government-run IRNA agency quoted an army commander as saying: "The explosion in Isfahan resulted from the air defense intercepting a suspicious object without recording any losses or damage."

An Iranian source told the Mehr News Agency that there was no attack on the airbase in Isfahan.

Tasnim News Agency reported from "informed sources" that "there are no reports of an external attack" in Iran after the explosions heard in the country.

A senior Iranian official told Reuters on April 19 that there were no plans to respond against "Israel" for the incident.

"The foreign source of the incident has not been confirmed. We have not received any external attack, and the discussion leans more towards infiltration than attack," the official said.

CNN also said there was no serious damage to the Isfahan Air Base in the satellite images.

This was despite Tehran closing its airports in the capital, Shiraz, and Isfahan, and allowing flights to avoid its western airspace for a few hours after the attack, according to the Flight Radar 24 flight tracking website, before reopening them.

Israeli analyst Amos Harel, writing in Haaretz, said the attack on Isfahan appears limited, and the Iranian denial may exempt the regime from retaliation.

Israeli Gains

Dr. Khalil al-Anani, Professor of Political Science and International Relations based in the United States, believes that the Israeli strike indicates a clear deal between Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu, focusing on Gaza rather than Iran.

In a tweet, he emphasized that "the Palestinians are always the ones paying the price," hinting at Israeli gains behind the events.

He clarified that their features include Washington allowing "Tel Aviv" to strike Iran "symbolically," preventing the outbreak of a regional war, with the goal of saving Joe Biden's internal political situation and bolstering his role as Israeli Occupation's guarantor and stability in the Middle East, amid estimations indicating a decline in his points in the November 2024 elections.

That would be in return for "gains for Israel" — namely, the U.S. veto against the establishment of a Palestinian state and American acceptance of an Israeli buffer zone in northern Gaza, which was previously rejected.

This is in addition to the American green light for "Israel" to carry out a broader operation in Rafah and the Philadelphi Corridor on the Egyptian border, compensating for the limited small strike in Iran, alongside a major new arms deal announced by Joe Biden worth one billion dollars for "Israel."

As well as activating the American plan for Israeli–Saudi normalization following the end of the Israeli invasion of Rafah, under the pretext of targeting the remnants of the al-Qassam Brigades, within post-Gaza plans with Arab support.

Among Israeli gains, Palestinian analyst Saeed Ziad believes that "Israel has gained a renewal of Western support in general and American support in particular regarding its war on Gaza, as well as temporary internal reconciliation."

Meanwhile, Iran has gained a bolder redefinition of conflict rules, breaking a psychological barrier regarding confrontation with "Israel."

However, he noted that "Israel has lost ground more deeply in its deterrence system, experienced a decline in its national security level, and widened the circle of fire with allied forces to Iran, led by Hezbollah."

Dr. Leila Nicolas, political affairs expert, suggests that it is now likely for everyone to climb down from the tree, ending concerns about regional war, and "Israel" will market its response as a sufficient retaliation to uphold its state's deterrence.

However, a former Egyptian ambassador stated that resistance in Gaza may have been counting on Iranian escalation against "Israel" to ease pressure on Gaza and force America to pressure the Israeli Occupation to end the Gaza war.

He explained to Al-Estiklal that marketing each party's achievement and saving face will prompt "Israel" to proceed with its plans, in full coordination with the U.S., in Gaza, denying any disputes between Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu, stating, "It is no more than a difference in how to kill Palestinians," according to him.

Yoel Guzansky, a former Iran affairs expert in the Israeli Prime Minister's office and a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, said that "Israel" apparently carried out the attack to send a message that we can hit you inside Iran.

However, it did so in an "extremely limited" manner to avoid provoking and annoying the United States or provoking further Iranian retaliation.

He told the Associated Press that the current round of violence seems to have ended, but nothing has changed, as "Israel" still faces Iran-backed threats on various fronts.

Al-Estiklal noted that Iranian social media platforms were filled with mockery of the Israeli strike, aiming to show that "Israel" did not dare to respond, despite military analysts confirming that both Iranian and Israeli strikes resulted in damage, albeit limited.

The Associated Press observed that downplaying "Israel" and Iran's response to the obvious Israeli strike, and their silent reactions, could lead to tensions easing for the time being.

Returning to Gaza

It was evident that there was American focus on persuading "Israel" to focus on Gaza and end the war there instead of engaging in a regional war exchanging blows with Iran, which would harm American interests and Joe Biden's electoral standing.

It could escalate to a global war amid possibilities of Russian intervention, and more importantly, escalation would favor resistance in Gaza, which is one of the targets of Operation al-Aqsa Flood and victory points involve mobilizing all fronts against the Israeli Occupation.

This doesn't mean that there are deals or implicit agreements between "Tel Aviv" and Tehran. Yet, each party understands that it's not in their interest to engage in a comprehensive war, while ensuring the maintenance of deterrence between them to save face for everyone, but the outcome isn't in favor of Gaza.

The final touches on the Israeli invasion of Rafah, in collaboration with Arab regimes and U.S. coordination, were hindered by the Israeli Occupation's response to Iran and its magnitude. Will the latter lead to escalation or not?

Now, in light of indications of no Iranian response and the failure of the prisoner exchange deal, and the completion of preparations for the invasion of Rafah by land, apparently with Cairo's coordination, Iran will be sidelined, and the focus will return to Gaza.

Two Israeli sources confirmed to CNN on April 15 that their country was about to start a military operation in the city of Rafah, south of the Gaza Strip, noting that it was "postponed" due to the expected Iranian response.

Among the evidence of the impending operation in Rafah, Egypt explicitly announced its approval of the military operation there in statements by Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry to CNN on April 16, 2024.

He speculated about opening the borders to refugees from Rafah and said, "The way we will do that depends on the circumstances."

Further evidence comes from Ibrahim al-Arajani's company, which announced the completion of a buffer zone along the borders of Rafah, complete with equipped houses. 

This area is implicated in scenarios involving the displacement of Palestinians from the Strip if the Israeli Occupation initiates a ground assault on the city of Rafah. 

Egyptian and Palestinian sources have confirmed the arrival of 500 Palestinian military personnel from the intelligence directorate of Majed Faraj to this buffer zone.

The tasks of this security force, according to Palestinian sources, include supervising the buffer zone in coordination with the Egyptian side, distributing humanitarian aid, and preparing elements of the security force affiliated with the authority to take over the management of the Rafah crossing.

A "position assessment" by Mada Strategic Insights on April 18, 2024, indicates that Netanyahu insists on invading Rafah to achieve six objectives:

Firstly, to maintain a state of war because ending it would push towards government collapse, leading to elections that he is likely to lose. Secondly, to seek a victory image, represented by reaching figures from the first ranks of Hamas and al-Qassam Brigades.

Thirdly, to intensify pressure on Hamas negotiators, while attempting to find an alternative local authority by returning to what resembles the Village Leagues system (administrative formations established by the Israeli Occupation authority in the West Bank in 1978 but failed due to Palestinian rejection).

The aim is to try to reduce Palestinian demands on one hand and incite popular resentment against the resistance factions due to the prolonged crisis and increased suffering.

The fourth goal is to prolong the war until the end of the U.S. presidential elections in the hope of the possible return of former President Donald Trump to the White House, who is expected to provide greater support for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli right, to strengthen his stay in power.

The fifth is an attempt to eliminate the "Rafah Brigade" in al-Qassam, which includes 4 military brigades with 10,000 fighters, in addition to the infrastructure of military factions believed to have gathered in the area following the invasion of the four governorates in the Gaza Strip.

Finally, it's to control the Salah al-Din axis with Egypt, where the Israeli Occupation claims that arms smuggling operations are carried out through tunnels between Gaza and Egyptian territory, thus completing the blockade of the Gaza Strip completely, in addition to dividing the Strip into several parts by establishing main roads under the control of the Israeli army.

U.S. officials denied reports to Axios that the Joe Biden administration gave the green light for an operation in Rafah if "Israel" refused to strike Iran in response to its latest attack on Isfahan.

However, American newspapers quoted officials saying that the point of contention was not the refusal to invade Rafah, but America's fear of a new massacre similar to those in northern and central Gaza, which would tarnish Israeli Occupation and the Joe Biden administration's international image again.

Nevertheless, Israeli analyst Zvi Bar'el, writing for Haaretz on April 19, 2024, cast doubt on Israeli Occupation's weak response to the Iranian attack benefiting the Rafah operation.

He anticipated that the Israeli Occupation's weak, hasty strike on Iran would affect the legitimacy of the operation in Rafah because the rushed, feeble Israeli strike on Iran has not achieved any success so far, and all "we" can do is wait to see what will happen in Rafah.

However, he confirmed that Egypt and the Palestinian Authority have already accepted the fact of Israeli Occupation's entry into Rafah, and they have begun preparations to accommodate the displaced and manage civil affairs.