Barsam Mohammadi – expert on regional affairs

Examining the missile and drone operations of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Occupied Territories, above all, requires knowing its nature and essential features:

Operations are based on the inherent right of legitimate defense. The action of the Islamic Republic of Iran against the Zionist regime was not a “military attack” so that Iran could be accused of aggression and invasion. Still, in terms of international law, it is considered a “legitimate and reciprocal” reaction and action, which was carried out based on the text of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This principle is so straightforward that all governments and international organizations accept it.

In fact, the Islamic Republic of Iran has tried to “punish” the aggressor through the inherent right of legitimate defense. The word punishment, which is a “reactionary” concept, clearly shows the nature of Iran’s action against the Zionist regime. Punishment is a “reaction” to the “hostile act” of a hostile force.

Targeting military positions: Unlike the Zionist regime, which bombards humanitarian, diplomatic, and civilian centers in military and terrorist actions against Iran and other countries and groups, the Islamic Republic of Iran, although it could target the entire Occupied Territories and civilian infrastructure, only fired missiles. And drones at “military” and non-residential centers.

By launching this operation, the Islamic Republic of Iran showed that despite all the ambiance that the haha seen seen created against Muslims and our country on the grounds of being anti-Jewish, it fully adheres to the “humanitarian” principles. Despite its extensive capabilities, it did not go beyond the scope of human ethics and character. It did something “civilized” based on Islamic and humanitarian principles.

Combined operation and impact on sensitive centers: In the operations of the Islamic Republic of Iran, nearly 110 ballistic missiles, 30 cruise missiles, and 150 drones were fired at targets deep in the Occupied Territories. In this historic operation, Iran’s missiles and drones, passing through several layers of defense and going through the Iron Dome and other advanced air defense systems, reached essential targets, including the “Nawatim” air base in the Negev desert, which played a role in Israel’s terrorist attack against the consular section of the Iranian embassy in Damascus.

The Nevatim base is a parking lot for F-35 fighter jets, which the Zionist regime uses to attack the positions of the Resistance Front in the region. In addition, stealth fighter jets, transport planes, refueling planes, electronic detection machines, and the so-called Israeli Air Force One planes are stationed there. The Nevatim base also has a three-runway airport and has recently been modernized for F-35 fighter jets.

Enjoying a deterrent nature, Iran’s operation in the Occupied Territories had the nature of “deterrence.” At the same time, it helped to strengthen and consolidate the deterrence power of the Islamic Republic of Iran against the Zionist regime and the US  in the region. This operation is also on the opposite point and according to what “John Bolton”, the former national security adviser of the United States emphasized, “is considered a big failure for the deterrence of the Zionist regime and its international and regional allies”.

Failure to use the principle of surprise: In the operation mentioned above, the Islamic Republic of Iran did not use the principle of surprise even though it could. Surprise is when the real intention is to inflict severe and destructive blows. But beyond military goals, the Islamic Republic of Iran sought to convey this “political message” that its hand is open to take any action in any situation and at any level against the Zionist regime.

Being rational and intelligent: The expectation of America, some European governments, and the Zionist regime was that Iran’s reaction would spread the war in the region, but Iran’s “intelligent strategy” in targeting the Zionist regime, which was accompanied by a precise diplomatic attachment, was such that the Zionist regime was severely slapped and “punished. Iran achieved goals beyond what it wanted, the atmosphere in the region did not move towards conflict, America failed to take action for the first time, and at the same time, Netanyahu’s position, which usually “exploits” such actions for personal and factional goals. was weakened

Yair Lapid, the former prime minister of the Zionist regime after Iran’s operation, strongly criticized Netanyahu in a statement and emphasized: “Elections must be held immediately so that the government that is making Israel miserable and ruining would quit.”

Consequences

Iran’s military response, a “great strategic success,” has significant consequences.

Weakening the military infrastructure and deterrence of the Zionist regime, the increasing reduction of the internal position of Netanyahu and the war cabinet, intensifying the balance of terror against the Zionist regime, giving confidence to the nations and governments of the region to confront the Zionist regime, changing regional equations and facilitating and accelerating the formation of the “New Middle East” With the Islamic Republic of Iran playing the central role is one of the strategic consequences in this field.

In addition, as a result of Iran’s actions, the “Dahiya doctrine” of the Israeli regime lost color and became ineffective. According to the Dahiya doctrine, which has been on the agenda since 2006 and after the attack of the 33-day war, the Zionist regime uses disproportionate firepower and severely targets all infrastructures to make different sections of the people pay the cost and provoke them against their leaders.

Right now, Western governments, especially the United States, have realized that the Islamic Republic of Iran, as an intelligent actor, has the capability and strong will to take countermeasures and punish the aggressor force. Therefore, we should talk to such an actor not with forceful language but in a measured way, based on the win-win model, and take into account its benefits.