Iranian Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei ordered the attack carried out against the Israeli occupation to be launched from Iranian soil as part of a clear message from the Islamic Republic that it would commence a new phase of active deterrence against the Israeli occupation, The New York Times reported on Sunday citing four Iranian officials, including members of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC).

Iran is reportedly moving away from "strategic patience" and being active against the Israeli occupation due to the realization that in this particular situation, remaining silent would bear more cons than pros for the Islamic Republic.

"Iran’s government appears to have concluded that the Damascus strike was a strategic inflection point, where failure to retaliate would carry more downsides than benefits," said Ali Vaez, the Iran director of the International Crisis Group.

Meanwhile, Iranian analyst Nasser Imani underlined that Iran carried out the operation in a crystal-clear message to the Israeli occupation and its allies that the rules of the game have changed and that any Israeli attack on any Iranian interests would be responded to sternly and from Iranian soil.

"Iran's operation has a crystal-clear message to Israel and its allies that the rules of the game have changed and from now on, if Israel strikes any Iranian targets or kills any Iranians, we are willing to strike in a big way, and from our own soil," Imani told the NYT in a telephone interview. "The days of covert operations and patience are over."

Iran has been clear that this attack was not an act of aggression and was solely in response to the Israeli occupation's violation of Iran's sovereignty by attacking its consulate in Syria. The Iranian mission to the United Nations stressed that Tehran would stand down and leave the situation as is so long as the Israeli occupation does not attack Iran once again.

The attack itself has sent massive reverberations throughout the world, with officials as prominent as former US National Security Advisor John Bolton, a vocal advocate for carrying out large-scale attacks on Iran, saying that the Iranian attack on the Israeli occupation was "a miserable failure of Israeli and American deterrence."

The importance of Iran's attack was also underlined by former Israeli military intelligence director Amos Yadlin, who said it "may lead to a strategic change in the war, and even to its end." Yadlin went on to suggest that the attack might even agree to a ceasefire and a withdrawal from Gaza in exchange for the return of all Israeli captives.

After years of the Israeli occupation threatening to attack Iran, it was Iran that attacked "Israel", former Israeli occupation forces spokesperson Avi Benyahu added.

New escalatory risks

A Wall Street Journal report on Sunday detailed Western concerns that Iran's retaliatory attack against "Israel" signals a willingness to take "new escalatory risks" in its actions.

Employing standard anti-Iran propaganda terms to depict Iran's leadership, including the usage of the words "the puppet masters of Middle East mayhem", the report says that the Iranian attack should also be a clear message to Western leaders about Iran’s so-called "malevolent intentions."

The report further claimed that while most missiles being intercepted was a relief, owing to joint efforts on the part of the US, UK, and Jordan, it doesn't provide reassurance against potential future attacks.

"What happens if the next attack comes all at once from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria as well as Iran?" WSJ asks while calling this instance "another case of failed US deterrence."

Despite warnings from the White House, Iran proceeded with the attack, suggesting they were confident that the US would not respond militarily.  

The report further criticizes Biden's Iran policy, suggesting that attempts to appease Iran through sanctions relief and negotiations have only "encouraged Tehran to see how much more it can get away with."

Throughout history, the US has often fabricated false information to stoke anti-Iran sentiments among its population. Of the many fabricated facts include that of the Iranian leadership being responsible for fueling tensions in the region.

Tehran has publicly expressed support for the Palestinian resistance and the people of Gaza but has repeatedly denied any involvement in the activities of other groups in the region. EU foreign policy chief has himself admitted the latter.

Moreover, the attack on "Israel" was not an aggression per se, but a retaliatory act in response to a recent aggression committed by the Israeli regime on the Iranian consulate in Damascus. Hence the operation was fully justified on all grounds, including principles of self-defense and proportionate response.