In a striking statement to the press, Brigadier General Ramadan Sharif, spokesman for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, said that "Israel has received painful responses to the failed attacks in Iran," preferring not to reveal the nature of these reactions at this time.
For observers, this raises obvious questions about the veracity of this statement and Iran's ability to send "painful responses" without revealing them. The "fiery" statements exchanged by Iranian and Israeli leaders and officials are not new but are among the classics of strained relations between the two strategic rivals. It is also one of the tools of "political survival" for both sides.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
The Iranian leadership uses the Israeli threat, along with the American one, to draw attention to what it sees as an existential threat to its country – without pointing out that the hostility is mainly limited to the regime and not to Iran, the country, and the people. On the other hand, the Iranian threat is one of the strategic levers for the Israeli elites' actions in the struggle for government and access to power.
Suppose the mutual threats to the point of "annihilation" continue, especially on the Iranian side, without an official representative of the Revolutionary Guards commenting on the recent terrorist attacks in Isfahan. In that case, there is not enough evidence, confirmation, or even symbolic references to support this claim. However, it is difficult to categorically deny it or consider it part of the psychological war raging between the two sides, especially since what happens between them in secret goes far beyond what happens in public.
Much of the current "rules of the game" are about obfuscation and evasion, at least to avoid legal liability, or out of confusion about the other side's perceptions, and to preserve the necessary room for maneuver to decide to escalate the conflict if necessary in cases of legitimate self-defense under international law.
The Iran-Israel conflict has become traditional and unconventional (intelligence and cyber). Its arenas are open in the air, on land, and at sea, and both sides are waging this conflict directly or through intermediaries. Most of the information about this covert war ends up in secret intelligence files and little is made public.
This justifies the existence of even the slightest possibility that the IRGC is retaliating against Israel and is content with the broad outlines of a statement to achieve a political goal without any concrete responsibility behind it.
The Iranian regime is in a period of shaken confidence due to ongoing popular protests, increasing external pressure from sanctions, the failure of attempts to revive the nuclear deal, and the transformation of Iran's relations with the West into a form of total isolation, with deteriorating relations with Europe due to Iran's stance on Russia's war in Ukraine.
These circumstances have forced the regime to make efforts to save face, even falsely, in front of its supporters at home and in the region (sectarian armies and militias), after the attack caused by the recent events in Isfahan revealed the state of weak security that the Iranian regime suffers from, despite all the claims of superiority and military successes that can be read daily in the Iranian media.
There is an urgent need to restore some credibility in the eyes of supporters. This need may force the IRGC, as the regime's chief security officer, to declare that retaliation has taken place. This is a blanket claim that does not give the other side (Israel) the opportunity to refute it.
It is based on missing or unknown information that is difficult to deny categorically.
Incidentally, this is one of the Iranian regime's tactics to gain credibility in such circumstances, apart from the fact that this explanation also gives the other side the opportunity to cover up the matter and maintain the media gain of the attack in Isfahan "which is indirectly attributed to Israel" by pursuing a policy of secrecy and ambiguity about responsibility.
The Israelis can also infer from this implicit Iranian message that no response is being prepared or contemplated, because preparation or readiness for a response does not require the announcement of a false response, but the expectation of a real response that will be more effective and credible.
For Israel, this does not deny that the message contained in the Iranian statement is misleading or intended to divert attention from a possible strong response. Such a possibility is certainly being seriously considered, given the legacy of mutual strategic deception between the two adversaries.
The covert war between Iran and Israel makes it difficult to verify the veracity of either side's claims. What is certain, however, is that the Iranian side has completely avoided making escalatory mistakes that would open the door or the possibility for Prime Minister Netanyahu's government, in close cooperation and coordination with the Biden administration, to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
This is a totally inappropriate time for Iran to provoke Israel, waiting for an opportunity for an Iranian escalation, even if it is in response to Israeli actions. So the question will be to what extent each side recognizes the significance of its actions. Both have subjective criteria for judging their behavior and the impact of their actions on the other side.
The psychological deterrence factor is as important as the executive aspect, and the evaluation of the IRGC commander's statements awaits only new facts made public by either side or one of them. The covert cold war between the two sides is likely to continue and escalate in order to achieve large and important goals, especially on the Israeli side.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
