Orientalist: Iran responded to Israel asymmetrically, thereby raising  escalation bar in Middle East

ArmInfo. Iran responded to Israel asymmetrically, thereby raising the bar for escalation in the Middle East. This is how APRI Armenia researcher and orientalist Sergei Melkonyan commented on Iran's attack on Israel on the night of April 13.

The expert noted that initially there was confidence that Iran would  respond as symmetrically as it has done many times: either attacks on  Israel with the help of its allies in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen,  or attacks would be on Israeli positions in the region. According to  him, this attack was unprecedented in this sense, since Iran hit  Israel from its territory.

According to Melkonyan, the following conclusions can be drawn.

"Firstly, Iran responded asymmetrically, thereby raising the bar of  escalation. Therefore, with a high degree of probability, one can  expect a response from the Israeli side. Amid ongoing discussions,  few want to escalate the situation, so the response may be limited to  saving face.  Secondly, we can assume that a new model of Iran's  behavior in the region is being formed. That is, in the event of a  similar crossing of red lines, attacks from Iran on Israel may  gradually become the norm for the region.

Third, the divergences in the Arab world have become more visible.  Some states, mainly from the Persian Gulf, openly stated that they  would not provide their territory to the United States to repel the  attack.  Others, for example, Jordan, have actually integrated into  the military format of cooperation with Israel and the United  States," the orientalist noted.

At the same time, the expert drew attention to the important  consequences of this blow.

In the context of the economic consequences, Melkonyan noted that,  according to various estimates, repelling the attack cost $1-1.5  billion for Israel and the United States. "Tehran used a well-known  arsenal, but in minimal quantities. In the event of more dense  attacks, the possibility of which Iran has, Israel will have serious  problems with security costs. In this sense, the advantage is on the  side of Iran, for which the production of these missiles and UAVs  costs almost ten times less," the orientalist is sure.

From the point of view of domestic political consequences for Israel,  according to the Armenian expert, Bibi actually got what he wanted.  "The crisis in relations with the United States against the backdrop  of differences over the operation in Rafah has faded into the  background before the closest possible cooperation due to the threat  from Iran. Thus, pressure on Bibi from the outside may be reduced. In  many ways, Netanyahu's main trump card, which would allow him to keep  power against the backdrop of both external and internal pressure was  an increase in stakes, namely, the escalation with Iran, which was  caused after Israel's attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus,"  he noted.

Speaking about the military-technical consequences, Melkonyan stated  that Iranian missiles "passed their test" in the sense that they were  used for their intended purpose for the first time.  "At the same  time, as follows from the reports, a small part hit the targets. The  Israeli air defense system again confirmed its reliability, albeit at  a high cost. Now the parties can switch places, and Israeli  missiles/drones and the Iranian air defense system will be tested. If  Israel wants to reduce the intensity and stop the course of  developments, then the strikes should be directed not at Iran, but at  its allies," the expert noted.

In conclusion, touching on the diplomatic component of the issue,  Melkonyan noted that it would be interesting to look at the  statements of the main powers: some will condemn, and others will  make reference to the UN Charter and Iran's right to defense. "And  then it will become clear that external forces are not interested in  a regional war," the orientalist concluded.