The Iranian attack on Israel on 13 April 2024 was a test of enormous proportions. Yet most journalists and informed commentators believe that it was merely a political message from Iran, not a frontal assault with deadly implications. The reaction from Beijing and Moscow was considered significant, and even correct: Beijing “takes note of Iran’s statement that the action taken was limited and was an act of self-defence”, the Chinese government said. During a call with his late Iranian counterpart, Ebrahim Raissi, Vladimir Putin also noted Iran’s desire “to avoid further escalation”. A limited and non-escalatory attack is what we were expected to remember. And that was what too many commentators have retained.
It is a classic ploy for pro-Iranian governments to play down the importance of the Iranian air attack “Operation Honest Promise”. On the other hand, those in the West who play down this attack and underestimate the existential danger faced by the State of Israel are committing a gross error of judgment. These Westerners go even further in their delusion: they ignore the significance of the death of two hardliners of the Iranian regime, President Ebrahim Raissi and Hassan Amir-Abdollahian, in a helicopter while they had just met Ilham Aliev, the President of Azerbaijan and a great ally of Israel. The irony of this meeting should have been pointed out, without necessarily speculating about a possible assassination. Of course, it was foggy!
So, the West is not focusing on the likely headlong rush by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (Pasdaran). Did they not see the Pasdaran’s commander-in-chief of missiles, General Ali Belali, lead reporter Fred Pleitgen on CNN screens on 1 May into a hangar or rather a missile showroom, pointing to the models fired at Israel? This unprecedented media display of self-confidence was crowned by General Bilali’s statement: “I’m not showing you other more advanced models that we haven’t used”. The General seemed sure he would have to do it all over again if necessary.
This journalistic incident at CNN, which was commendable and informative, produced some very strange effects: the rest of the press hardly reacted at all to this display of missiles. The political leaders and a good proportion of the other Western media unconsciously participated in a “light” mystification: hardly ever proclaiming the seriousness of the attack of 13 April, the specialists soberly explained its severity to the curious. Highly informed French sources, among others, all agreed that the attack was massive. According to some, it was “a full-scale test”, a real attempt to cause harm. The official message from the French government, concerning its participation in the defence of the Jordanian skies, the last field of interception before Israel, which was the target: “France, at the request of the Jordanian government, has protected French military installations located on Jordanian bases”. This language trivialises the strategic dimension of the attack and even sweeps aside the quality of the French response, which was modest but precise. The Jordanian air force also intervened, but the Jordanian government and its tightly corseted press reported gunfire without even mentioning the fact that the targets were Iranian projectiles aimed at Israel!
The famous Israeli war journalist Ron Ben Yishai said, during a visit to Paris at the end of May, that Israel’s defensive preparations had been carried out at the highest level: the US Commander-in-Chief of Centcom, General Michael Kurilla, and the Israeli Chief of Staff, Herzi Halevi, spent days poring over maps in Tel Aviv. The Israelis have assigned themselves their sovereign skies, and the Americans and their allies — including the French and especially the British — would intercept over Iraq and Jordan. Israeli anti-aircraft defence is itself American-Israeli technology, and heavily subsidised by the US Treasury. The Islamic Republic of Iran was symbolically at war with the West.
In the obsessive climate of war in Gaza, and the captivity of hostages (perhaps half of whom have perished), even ordinary Israelis are not terrified by this Iranian attack, and probably do not have the appropriate regard for the Western and Jordanian alliance that repelled “Honest Promise”. The fog of war is apparent here: one does not properly assess the significance of an event that has just taken place. From the Israeli point of view, the case of the unfortunate hostages took precedence over the strategic question of a potential apocalyptic attack. From the Western, and especially the American, point of view, the desire not to go to war with the Islamic Republic of Iran has led to an unreasonable indifference to the régime, which is nonetheless considered to be enemy number 1 in the Middle East. Honest promise ended up being Fog of War.
All publishing rights and copyrights reserved to MENA Research Center.
