Sameera Casmod | sameerc@radioislam.co.za
02 October 2024 | 10:55 a.m. SAST
3-minute read

Iran launched its largest military strike against Israel, firing 182 ballistic missiles targeting three Israeli military bases, as a response to Israel’s attacks on militant leaders in Iran and Lebanon. Despite the intensity, the strike seems more symbolic, with Iran signaling restraint unless provoked further by Israel.

Iran launched its retaliatory airstrike on Israel last night, in which it launched 182 ballistic missiles at Israel’s military facilities. Three Israeli military bases had been targeted, according to Iran’s state news agency.

The assault comes as a response to Israel’s attacks on militant leaders, including Ismail Haniyeh in Iran as well as Hasan Nasrallah and six other Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon. Additionally, Israel’s increased aggression in Lebanon and Gaza catalysed Tehran’s attack.

However, in a post on X early today, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said, “Our action is concluded unless the Israeli regime decides to invite further retaliation. In that scenario, our response will be stronger and more powerful.”

Tehran’s attack appears to be a superficial salvo to save face as it tries to avoid being drawn into battle with Israel.

“It’s just more for the optics rather than the effect, although, unlike previously in April, this attack did see a few ballistic missiles hit targets rather than previously it was all shot down,” Hafidh Ibrahim Deen said during this week’s Media Lens.

The missile attack, Iran’s biggest military assault on Israel, differs from previous strikes. Unlike earlier attacks where drones were primarily used, this time ballistic missiles were employed, which are more challenging to shoot down due to their speed and trajectory.

The change in leadership in the Islamic Republic with the election of Masoud Pezeshkian after President Ebrahim Raisi’s death in May 2024 might be the reason for the country taking a more balanced approach to the conflict.

Iran is in a more compromised position both militarily and economically than it was before and is holding out hope for diplomatic negotiations with Europe.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu has promised to retaliate, having reportedly said during an emergency political security cabinet meeting on Tuesday, “Iran made a big mistake tonight – and it will pay for it.”

The United States has expressed its support for Israel and said it would ensure that Iran faced “severe consequences” for the missile attack.

Media coverage- particularly that of western media outlets – of Tuesday’s attack mainly focuses on Iran’s attack on Israel without sufficient context about Israel’s continuous and expanding aggression.

“It’s seen in many media outlets as Iran directly attacking Israel, when there’s a whole history of Israeli activity in Iran- it’s de-linked from Israel’s actions in Lebanon, no media coverage about the three massacres that happened yesterday in Gaza, which killed 40 people,” Hafidh Deen said, noting how the media’s narrative often frames Israel’s attacks as defensive.

He added that changes in media ownership and editorial decisions would be needed for a shift in how these events are portrayed. Until then, Deen argued, mainstream outlets will continue to present a skewed version of events.

Looking ahead, it appears that the missile strike will not lead to a wider war. Hafidh Deen noted that Iran is playing a waiting game hoping for a change in US leadership after the upcoming presidential elections in November. It appears, Deen said, that Iran is hoping that Vice President Harris might soften foreign policy if she wins.

In a separate incident, reports emerged of an attack at an Israeli train station, killing at least six people. While details remain unclear, Deen suggested that this attack may be linked to internal tensions within Israel. The Israeli Occupation Forces claimed to have neutralised the attackers, and no official links to Iran or Lebanon have been confirmed.

Listen to the Media Lens on Sabaahul Muslim with Moulana Habib Bobat.