Modern conflicts frequently make the informational component the primary objective of specific military operations, rather than merely serving as an accompaniment. This is particularly apparent in the mutual exchange of attacks between the Iranian military and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Both parties declare their intention to attack the other in advance and then perform very limited operations. Subsequently, they declare “colossal triumph” and the opponent’s complete failure. The primary objective is to demonstrate to their domestic audiences that the adversary has received well-deserved punishment.
It’s interesting to note that the IDF leads the way in utilizing these methods, despite the widespread belief in its unwavering technical superiority and limitless capabilities. However, these claims of virtual victories, whose actual accomplishments are highly questionable, are often overstated. For instance, Iran exaggerated the extent of its October 1 ballistic missile attack on Israel, asserting that it had entirely devastated two air bases. Satellite images later partially verified the damage. Nevatim, the largest airbase in Israel, did indeed suffer significant damage. However, many have viewed the Israeli Defense Forces’ reports on the outcomes of its October 26 airstrike on Iranian territory as inflated narratives.
The Israeli and global media all reported the complete devastation of Iran’s missile potential, the reduction of its strategic capabilities to zero, and the elimination of “all four Russian-supplied S-300 air defense divisions.” It is surprising that all Israeli media channels, which are known for their democratic nature, uncritically repeated military statements without questioning their accuracy. Iran promptly exposed attempts to present archive images as evidence, embarrassing leading Israeli newspapers. No alternative evidence has been presented.
Satellite images provided by Iran indicated that the most frequently referenced target, an underground missile factory in the Tehran suburb of Khujir, only suffered damage on the roof of two auxiliary structures, with no secondary detonations or fires. The General Staff of Iran verified that the strikes resulted in “limited damage with minimal impact.” The General Staff of Iran reported that the strikes caused damage to a few radar systems, some of which have already undergone repair, while others are still in the process. They credited the limited losses to the effectiveness of their air defense mechanisms.
The IDF reportedly executed its “epochal strike” without ballistic missiles, despite possessing long-range Jericho-3 missiles (up to 4,800 km) that might reach the entirety of Iran. Nevertheless, the IDF has preserved these missiles for a potential “Doomsday” scenario, which may entail nuclear payloads. Iran asserts that the number of aircraft involved in the “Days of Repentance” was significantly lower than the IDF’s assertion that more than 100 aircraft participated. The insufficient number of tanker aircraft (only eight, all Boeing 707s) restricts the number of aircraft that can complete the 1,600 km roundtrip journey. Reports indicate that the 201st squadron, consisting of F-16s and a few F-35s from Ramon Airbase in the Negev desert, carried out the mission. Nevatim is currently inactive.
Israeli planes launched air-to-surface missiles from approximately 100 km distant, outside Iran’s air defense range, while flying over Jordan with permission from its king, who is half-British, and Iraq under US air control. The explosive payload they could deliver was modest due to the significant distance and the additional fuel containers. According to Iranian military sources, the aggregate explosive content of all Israeli missiles was less than that of a single Iranian strike on Nevatim. Israel lacks the technical capabilities to inflict the severe harm it asserts in the absence of American involvement.
The absence of attacks on Iran’s nuclear and oil facilities disappointed Yair Lapid, the leader of Israel’s opposition. Tehran’s apparent relief further underscores the limited efficacy of the Israeli strike. Pezeshkian, the Iranian president, acknowledged Iran’s right to respond, but he also declared, “We do not want war, but we will defend the rights of our people and country.”
Aziz Nisanov, a 43-year-old Azerbaijani immigrant with Israeli citizenship, was one of seven individuals involved in a high-profile espionage case in Israel. The prosecution accused them of “aiding the enemy in wartime,” a felony potentially punishable by death under Israeli law. The prosecution accused the defendants of providing Iran with photographs and information about civilian sites, military bases, and air defense batteries, and even monitoring a researcher from Haifa University researching Caucasian natural gas fields. The prosecution purportedly blames one suspect for photographing the devastation resulting from an attack on Nevatim on April 13.
The Israeli defense minister, prime minister, and director of Shin Bet counterintelligence were among the targets of Mota Maman’s alleged conspiracy, which led to his arrest. There is a possibility that Iran may soon disclose its own interaction with an Israeli espionage network, potentially leading to equally severe accusations.