The most important aspect of Iran’s retaliatory strike against the Israeli occupation entity on April 13 is the establishment of a new deterrence equation: If Iranian territory is attacked, the response will be inevitable and rapid. The era whereby the entity can hit Iranian leaders or attack Iran maliciously without facing direct consequences is gone. Iran proved through this attack that it has the will, morale, ability, and decision to execute what it says. The Israeli occupation entity was not expecting Iran to respond in this way, however, it has given its greatest enemy the excuse to enter the equation and act as a facilitating front to ending the war on Gaza; in a similar manner to how Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq have operated as supporting fronts these past six months.

It is to Iran’s credit that it openly stated the quantity and type of drones and missiles it fired toward the entity, knowing very well that the US satellites were monitoring, with American ships and air defenses ready to down the flying objects. Iran was almost sending a challenge to its adversaries: down whatever you wish, we will still hit our targets with precisions. Indeed, the "Nevatim" air base from which Israeli planes launched the attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus and the Israeli intelligence headquarters in the Golan Heights, which conspired in the attack, were both successful targets. The strike was also a test of its enemy's capabilities, testing the extent and size of American intervention and its strategic positioning.

Iran’s strikes sent multiple messages in terms of the limits of deterrence and its options, through the quantity, magnitude, and type of attack that it launched. While Iranian missiles flew above political institutions, like the Knesset, and populated areas, it sent a message that it would not strike except the locations in which "Israel" targeted the consulate in a retaliatory manner. Iran proved that it is not like the Israeli occupation entity, because it abides by international law in the event of war and does not target who are considered civilians. In this way, Iran has not warranted an Israeli response and there is no excuse for the expansion of the war. At the same, Iran sent a direct message, that is they can respond in a strong manner if their enemy is stupid enough to escalate. The Israeli occupation entity’s lack of direct response to mainland Iran is an indication that the entity is in big trouble in the face of the Islamic Republic.

Iran made it clear from the manner it responded that it seeks a limited operation, consolidating the deterrence factor that it wishes to impose. The limits of the Iranian response were that it ought not to be strong enough to invoke a regional war such that America feels the need to get involved since the goal from Iran’s perspective is to halt the Israeli war on Gaza. Iran considers this the greater victory because the war would have ended with the Resistance in Gaza standing strong and "Israel" not having achieved a single military strategic objective.

Related News

How MI6 helped HTS seize Syria

Cognitive potential in limbo: Critical analysis of gifted education deficiencies in Lebanese refugee camps

The Iranian response strategy is based on the notion that Gaza must remain the focus. To turn it into a regional conflict is to give the Israeli occupation entity what it wants, as that would free its hand in Gaza, with the world distracted from their mass genocide. This would also facilitate "Israel’s" only plan for Gaza, which is to create unbearable conditions and get rid of Gaza altogether. The Iranian retaliatory strike has already created a much better ground and atmosphere for Palestinian negotiations and has strengthened their position.

On Monday this week, Bloomberg quoted the former Israeli military intelligence director, Amos Yadlin, as saying, "The Iranian attack may lead to a strategic change in the war in Gaza and even its end." CNN quoted Israeli sources as saying that the attack prompted "Israel" to postpone its plans to carry out an attack on Rafah. America is taking Iran very seriously, avoiding confrontation and applying pressure on the Israeli occupation entity to come to its terms. There is more desperation to end the war altogether, as its consequences are becoming uncontrollable. The Israeli occupation entity’s situation has become fragile, and this inevitably facilitates a ceasefire and an end to the war on Gaza.

The Iranian retaliatory response proved that the Israeli occupation entity is trembling and is in a state of panic. If it was not for America’s mobilization of all its forces in the region, just to detect Iranian drones and missiles to hit them, then the entity could not "defend" itself at all. America made it clear it would not participate in an attack against Iran and would only defend the occupation entity if Iran responded. For America to protect the entity now is only to prevent its collapse and disintegration, while working with it is only to pass the American vision and not that of the Israeli occupation entity.

The Israeli occupation has been unable to defeat a guerrilla paramilitary within 6 months, with Gaza considered the weakest link in the Axis of Resistance, therefore the victory for the Axis is now the beginning of the end of the entity. The Israeli occupation entity has failed in its task and has become a burden to Western interests; therefore its role will naturally shrink to match its true size as America seeks to pass the political two-state solution, in the hopes of stabilizing its interests in the region and consequently weakening the Gaza Resistance.

For the first time in 7.5 decades, due to the military operation of October 7, the Palestinian cause has become a priority in every nation’s agenda and every election. Public opinion at this rate cannot be reversed, and Western support for the Israeli occupation entity will reduce with time, as America will need to find a substitute. The reality is that Biden is not defending the Israeli occupation entity, rather he is defending the imperialist project represented by the entity until he determines what it will settle on.