On the evening of October 1, 2024, it seemed to many that the most terrifying forecasts and predictions about the situation in the Middle East were already coming true. The image of an Iranian missile attack in response to actions by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in the region horrified the entire population of Israel. Many had been celebrating the “successful” bombings in Lebanon the day before. Hundreds of ballistic missiles from Tehran (up to 500, according to Iranian claims, or around 200, according to Western estimates), along with even more Israeli anti-missiles from the ground and military aircraft, lit up the sky. Widespread military action across the region was expected to erupt instantly. Trump, positioning himself for the US presidential race, commented that “Biden and Harris have led us to the brink of world war.”
However, morning came, and the IDF, which had promised to respond to Iran with “unprecedented fire” that night, did not follow through. Tehran declared that it was satisfied with the results of its strike and would not continue such actions unless Israel resorted to the promised retaliation. Surprisingly, there were almost no human casualties from the Iranian missile strikes, aside from the panic they caused among the population. But where did Iran aim, and why was it so satisfied while the IDF seemed puzzled?
Tehran undoubtedly achieved its primary victory on the information-propaganda front, a crucial factor in modern conflicts. Unquestionably, the world witnessed the easy penetration of a significant portion, if not the majority, of Iran’s missiles into Israel’s much-vaunted missile defense systems, the “Iron Dome” and “David’s Sling.” Despite reports in Western and Israeli media that Iran’s newly elected president, M. Pezeshkian, carried out the almost covert “True Promise 2” operation, he instantly backed it, declaring that “the Zionist regime’s Iron Dome was more fragile than glass.”
Given the ongoing situations in Gaza and Lebanon, many saw the lack of civilian casualties in Israel as more of a criticism of Israel than a failure of the “Persian” operation. Iran had declared from the start that its missiles would only target military targets, ensuring no harm to civilians. Many Israelis, due to the country’s small size, thought the missiles were aimed at them, but in reality, they landed near military bases.
It is difficult to determine the precise damage inflicted on the IDF and whether any military casualties were sustained. Any Israeli media outlet that reports on this or private individuals posting information online would be severely punished by law. The General Staff has not acknowledged any losses. Iran, however, claims the “complete destruction” of Israel’s largest airbase, Nevatim, in the Negev desert, including the disabling of 20 cutting-edge American F-35 fighter jets—though this number might not even exist in the entire country. Reports also indicate significant damage to the Tel Nof airbase near Tel Aviv, home to F-15 long-range aircraft. Some footage suggests that an attack may have hit a gas extraction platform in the Mediterranean.
While it is nearly impossible to confirm these details, independent observers have documented that at least ten missiles hit both bases, and there was indeed something burning in the sea. The IDF has acknowledged missile strikes on its airbases, which is a genuine success for Iran and likely delayed Israel’s immediate response. It was expected that Israel would target Iranian nuclear and oil infrastructure. However, Tehran demonstrated Israel’s vulnerability in this sensitive area by striking Tel Nof, reportedly home to some of Israel’s nuclear warheads, and Nevatim, part of the missile defense covering the Dimona nuclear facility. If Iranian missiles can hit the “shield,” they can also reach the reactor itself.
In their previous raid in April of this year, the Iranians hit Nevatim with just one missile, after which Israel bombed somewhere in the Iranian desert in a rather uncoordinated manner. Now, despite reinforced defenses at the base, about ten missiles hit. The potential damage to Iran’s oil infrastructure may be less significant compared to Israel’s gas production losses, raising serious concerns for the IDF’s General Staff.
Furthermore, experts believe that in this operation, Iran used an outdated series of its ballistic missiles, the Shahab-3, with a range of up to 2,500 kilometers, produced in 2003-2004, which were nearing the end of their operational life. Iran still has more advanced and accurate missiles, with modern versions featuring GPS satellite trajectory correction and multi-warhead capabilities.
The stakes are now so high that it’s difficult to imagine the current Israeli leadership refraining from a massive retaliatory strike. Netanyahu, driven by personal motives to avoid criminal justice, has escalated the situation in the region to such a degree that backing down now would be political suicide. It seems like Netanyahu is already prepared for an apocalyptic scenario.
Iran’s operation has reignited spirits across the Middle East, where Hezbollah, under the leadership of Sheikh Nasrallah, has already seen a major part of Beirut devastated by Israeli strikes. Killing leaders has never been an effective way to weaken ideocratic regimes; new, often more radical leaders emerge. Hezbollah is expected to recover soon, and life in northern Israel under its attacks could become a nightmare. In the south, Hamas militants are likely to become more active, taking advantage of the IDF’s redeployment from Gaza to Lebanon. The West Bank, where the majority of Palestinians live, is on the verge of an uprising. The situation around Israel is becoming increasingly radicalized despite assurances from Western media to the contrary.
Sunni rulers are uncomfortable with the fact that it is mainly Shia forces, like Iran, that are defending their Palestinian co-religionists. In Jordan, for instance, the Muslim Brotherhood won recent parliamentary elections, demanding King Abdullah adopt a tougher stance toward Israel. Turkish President Erdogan has even suggested war against Israel, though few believe Ankara would actually take that step. Nonetheless, even Erdogan, known for his bold rhetoric, has never issued such strong threats before. Netanyahu’s description of Egypt and Saudi Arabia as “blessed states” in the UN General Assembly may not be a threat, but it has dashed any hopes of cooperation with Israel. The “Abraham Accords” are in ruins.
While Israel may seem technologically invincible, its long-term existential fragility is clear. Out of the 15 million people living within its recognized and occupied territories, Jews account for 7 million, while Arabs of various categories (citizens, disenfranchised Palestinians, and East Jerusalem residents with intermediate status) number 8 million. Even if Israel prevails in this round of conflicts, the demographic proportion will remain unchanged. The reservoir of Jewish immigration has dried up, and there may even be a reverse trend exacerbated by endless conflicts. However, Israel’s elites, for religious and ideological reasons, refuse to consider creating two states or granting equal rights to all (which would lead to a loss of power). This only delays the inevitable catastrophe but doesn’t prevent it. The more this solution is postponed, the harder it becomes to implement. The level of mutual hostility is increasing, and if the current course continues, there will be no other outcome but complete chaos and mutual destruction.