Was Israel's Attack On Iran A Retreat, Or Is There More To Come?

Written by Robert Inlakesh

Israel's attack on Iran this past Saturday has caused immense confusion, especially due to the unchecked spread of propaganda in the Western corporate media. While it is now evident that Iran intends to respond to the Israeli strikes, varying details surrounding the attack are crucial to understanding what happens next.

When the Israeli attack began, the first news outlet to report that Israel's strikes had begun, and to update their audience live about the multi-wave strategy, was The New York Times, which was even quoted at the time by the Israeli media. If anything, this demonstrates how well connected US corporate media is with the Israeli military.

The initial claim released by the Israeli armed forces was that 100 fighter jets were used to pull off the attack that struck purely military targets inside of Iranian territory. As per the claims of Iranian officials, the Israeli strikes were carried out from Iraqi airspace, this also appears to be the view of Baghdad that complained officially to the United Nations over the violation of their territorial integrity. Whether the Israeli Air Force actually used this number of warplanes remains unconfirmed and is likely propaganda, especially due to the fact that Tel Aviv also carried out strikes on Syria, Lebanon and Gaza during the air assault against the Islamic Republic.

Debunking The Propaganda

While the Israelis have tried to paint their attack as devastating, the reality was anything but. Although it is clear through the admission of the Iranian armed forces and satellite imagery from a number of effected sites that Israeli munitions clearly hit targets at military sites, the extent of the damage appears somewhat minimal.

For over three weeks, since Iran's retaliatory strikes on Israeli military bases on October 1, Israeli officials threatened "lethal, precise, and especially surprising" attacks on Iranian territory. Israeli Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, declared that "they won't understand what happened or how it happened, but they'll see the results," while claims from unnamed officials led the world to believe that nuclear and oil infrastructure would be bombed. Some even speculated that a decapitation strike on the Syrian government, in conjunction with assassinations of senior Iranian officials; including its Supreme leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.

Instead, it is clear that the Israelis chose the weakest possible option available to them, hence why their media needed to share videos and photos from years ago across social media in order to make the attack seem significant. One image, which went viral across platforms like X [formerly Twitter] and Instagram, purported to show a massive Israeli airstrike in Iran's Capital, Tehran, but was shown to have actually taken place back to 2021.

Israel then released an image of its Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, in the operations room, with that same image from 2021 on a monitor in the background, which was quickly pointed out on social media and proved embarrassing for Tel Aviv.

The next piece of disinformation that needs debunking is the idea that Israel's attack was "retaliatory", which almost every corporate media outlet in the West was claiming. Factually this was an aggression, not a retaliation. This conclusion is not opinion, it is simply obvious when following the escalation ladder.

No matter how far you take this back, Iran was attacked first and we could go all the way back to January 12, 2010, when Israel began assassinating nuclear scientists on Iranian soil. Yet, we'll just look at the two times when Iran struck Israel directly, both of which occurred this year. The first Iranian strike against Israeli military bases occurred in April and came in direct retaliation for Israel's bombing of the consular segment of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria. The second Iranian missile strike, on October 1, came in response to the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Hanniyeh in the Iranian Capital of Tehran on July 31.

In both these cases, Iran submitted a request to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) immediately afterwards and requested a condemnation of the attacks on its territory, in each case the US envoy defended Israel and vetoed any condemnation of what amounted to clear violations of international law. Tehran then sent out warnings and approached the UN in an official capacity to inform them that under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran had the right to self-defense. When Israel has carried its strikes on Iran, it never even bothered to consult the UN, in fact, Israel banned the United Nation's Secretary General Antonio Guterres from even entering occupied Palestine.

There is no conceivable way that Israel's attack on Iran could be labelled "retaliatory", this is a lie on behalf of the Western corporate media and Western officials.

Sticking with the nonsense of Western corporate media, Reuters released a story entitled "Satellite photos show Israel hit Iran former nuclear weapons test building, missile facilities, researchers say", which is shameless propaganda, to say the least. The site referred to in the article is called Parchin Military Complex, and one of the structures within that complex, "Taleghan 2", was once tested by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which found traces of Uranium, but concluded that it was not in the form that could be used as a weapon.

The IAEA has never alleged that Iran has a secretive nuclear weapons program and there has never been any proof offered that the Iranians previously had such a program, despite the countless claims of US and Israeli officials. For Reuters to run such a headline is pure anti-Iran propaganda, and at an extremely sensitive time. Yet it isn't all that surprising considering that Reuters will still run stories about Iran using the old flag from the days of the US/Israeli-installed Shah that hasn't been used by the country since 1979.

Another claim being floating by Israel is the idea that their strikes managed to destroy all of Iran's S-300 air defense systems. Not only would this have resulted in much higher casualties -- which we don't see as a result of the strikes -- but according to the satellite imagery available, and a BBC verify report that consults pro-NATO think-tanks, there is no evidence of serious damage to air defense systems.

What Happens Next

If we combine the Israeli effort of spreading old images aimed at misleading the public with the numerous strongly worded threats over the course of nearly a month, it is clear that Israel chose to conduct a weak attack. Which leads to a number of questions. The first of which is whether the Israelis even have the capacity to carry out a larger bombing campaign, which appears to be the case.

Assuming that Israel does have the capacity to carry out a much more painful air assault on Iran, then this leads us to the next natural series of questions: Was this an Israeli attempt to save face and back down, or is Tel Aviv preparing something greater?

Unlike what occurred earlier this year, following Iran's retaliatory strikes against Israel in April, when Israel launched a small-scale drone attack in Iran, Tehran is not downplaying the Israeli attack this time and considers it to be significant enough to merit a response. The Iranian military admitted damage to a range of military sites and that four of its soldiers had been killed, accusing the US of complicity in the attack.

“Iran will not give up its right to respond to the Zionist regime. This is a right and a responsibility of the government, therefore, …we are firm and serious in our response,” said Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismael Baghaei. Additionally, Iran's envoy to the United Nations has conveyed the message that the Islamic Republic intends to respond in accordance with international law, which occurred before the past two Iranian retaliatory attacks on Israel.

While it is clear that Tehran is poised to inflict a blow on the Israelis, there are also indications that Tel Aviv is seeking to do more damage by pulling off more strikes against Iran. If the Israelis seek to choose this option of attacking again, prior to any Iranian response, it is more than likely such operations will not be conducted through additional air campaigns, instead potentially coming in the form of covert operations, like assassinations or the use of Iranian opposition groups to carry out attacks.

However, if Iran retaliates soon, there are two possible options on the table: Either Israel escalates into a broader battle and will use the intelligence they collected from their first attack to improve the effectiveness of their attacks, or Iran will deliver a blow so powerful that the United States will have to reign in their Israeli allies. At some point, regardless of how this transpires, Washington will have to put its foot down and end this, or else we could be looking at a catastrophic regional conflict which will drag in the US directly.