As of April 15, various media outlets linked to Israel have discussed the nature of the Israeli response following their failed speculations about an Iranian military response. The massive Iranian attack has virtually left them on the brink of turmoil, surrounded by fields of doubt and surprises, putting an end to all their previous news and analyses that claimed Iran would not attack or would respond indirectly to Israeli violations.
In fact, the Iranian attack caused significant damage to Israel, which was not limited to material and human losses. After this attack, Israel is no longer the regional power it was promoted to be, and its level of confrontation is now restricted to a limited and small number of resistance groups.
To regain this lost credibility, news agencies circulated stories about a military attack on Iran, which became a subject of ridicule among social media users worldwide, while Western-controlled media maintained a narrative of psychological manipulation in this regard.
However, it is important to clarify several points regarding Israel's inability to attack Iran: First, Israel is not capable of attacking Iran alone, especially after the Americans clearly stated that they would not accompany Israel in attacking Iran. It has become evident that Israel is unable to defend itself, lacks its own independence, and needs countries like Britain, France, Jordan to assist in repelling attacks.
In any assault on Iran, Israel must pass through the territories of Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia. These nations are not prepared to ally with Israel and allow the use of their airspace against Iran, and thus Israeli planes would not be able to reach Iranian airspace in any way. None of the Western allied countries are willing to accompany Israel in this reckless adventure, and they do not see the tension and the expansion of insecurity in the region as beneficial.
If Israel were to launch a military attack, it would spark a widespread war in the region, igniting it like wildfire, targeting Western forces and bases, jeopardizing these countries. In contrast to Israel, Iran's vast size and strategic depth mean that any threat or attack will not be painful for Iran and will not lead to a change in its policies and regional strategies. On the contrary, a small array of Iranian drones and missiles has covered the entire sky over Israel; had there been an intent to launch wide-ranging attacks and cause casualties, Israel’s fate would be sealed.
Israel has faced severe psychological pressure after 12 days of targeting the Iranian consulate and Iran's official declaration of retaliation. It is clear that Israel now wants to play this game against Iran, seeking to keep some Iranian military forces occupied. While it became evident that the Zionist threat was hollow, it led to increased confusion within Israel and expedited the collapse of the false image constructed around Israel's power.
Israel has incurred direct and indirect damages amounting to over $100 billion since the onset of the Gaza war. Its national currency has depreciated by 20%, leading to a budget deficit. In this context, if a conflict erupts with Iran, the potential economic losses, in light of the exodus of foreign companies and the rising risks of foreign investment, could exceed three times the aforementioned amount.
The Iranian direct attack on Israel on April 14 shattered the flimsy constraints regarding the non-targeting of Tel Aviv directly, reversing the equation entirely. Practically, after this date, there are no longer any obstacles in Iran's decision-making process. In case of repeated Israeli violations against Tehran, Iran can respond directly from now on.
Iran has many allied proxy groups in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Palestine that can attack Israel whenever they wish, whereas Israel does not have such options. Naturally, Tel Aviv has the capacity to conduct operations through its terrorist arms, but compared to attacks carried out by the Houthis or Hezbollah, for example, these are undoubtedly lower-impact options.
