As If It Never Happened: Interpreting the “Israeli” Response to Iran
Israeli Media Exposes Gallant’s Photo Tied to the Attack; Al-Arabiya Substitutes Scenes from Beirut to Cover the Weak Israeli Response
The Israeli government has banned its ministers from interviews temporarily, while American allies are left in shock.
The coalition of resistance has gained momentum in further pressuring Israel in a battle where Tehran is far from absent.
After much hype and threats, Israel launched an attack on Iranian territory, which it claimed was in response to the “Truthful Promise 2” operation. A historical scene that many predict will linger in memory for decades as a testament to Israel’s fragility.
Details of the attack reveal that, according to enemy army spokesperson Daniel Hagari, 100 fighter jets began targeting Iranian bases and military sites from 1 a.m. yesterday. Channel 13 confirmed that Israel deployed F-35s and other fighters in the attack. Yet, with this level of firepower, even channels like Al-Arabiya and Al-Hadath, which eagerly sought visual proof of the strike, were forced to substitute footage from Beirut’s Dahiya district to illustrate the alleged bombing of Iran.
Notably, Israeli jets never actually entered Iranian airspace, launching their strikes from a safe distance for fear of Iranian defenses. The planes flew over Syrian and Iraqi airspace en route to their targets.
Iran’s air defense announced that the Zionist attack affected bases in Tehran, Khuzestan, and Ilam provinces, with most assaults repelled, resulting in minimal damage to military facilities in these regions.
In general, Iran’s air defenses outperformed the entity’s strikes, with life remaining unchanged in Iran’s cities. Tehran’s streets appeared calm, with people moving normally before and after the so-called Zionist attack.
Domestic Reactions and International Perceptions
The first admission of the strike’s failure came from Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, who stated that avoiding strategic and economic targets in Iran was a mistake and that Israel should have inflicted a more significant toll. An Israeli military analyst, in an interview with Shehab News Agency, called the Israeli attack “merely a display” and “extremely limited.”
Specialist in the Israeli issue, Nihad Abu Ghosh, commented that Israel’s response proved it lacks independence and is constrained by American limitations. He labeled the assault more of a maneuver than a real strike, intended only to restore the entity’s image after Iran’s substantial blow to its credibility. He added that Israeli jets never entered Iranian airspace, underscoring a genuine fear of Iranian air defenses. Abu Ghosh went further, echoing the words of “Israel’s National Security Minister” Itamar Ben-Gvir, who once labeled a previous Israeli response a “farce,” saying that Iran’s position as a central regional power is now undeniable, and Israel lacks a solution without U.S. backing.
Political analyst Ahmad Abdulrahman remarked that Israel’s restrained response following its high-stakes threats suggests Israel was compelled to accept new rules of engagement, evident from its mounting vulnerability on multiple fronts across the region. Abdulrahman highlighted that America’s reluctance to let the situation spiral into all-out war has curbed Israel’s actions, especially following the recent opening of the al-Aqsa Flood battle that exposed the frailty of Israel’s deterrent.
Despite the Israeli strike’s feebleness, the opposition quickly seized the opportunity to criticize Netanyahu, portraying him as ineffective. They questioned his achievements in Gaza, Lebanon, and now Iran.
To stem the backlash surrounding Israel’s strike on Iran, the entity’s radio reported that Netanyahu’s spokesperson barred press interviews with cabinet ministers. The supposed show of Israeli might failed to convince anyone and reinforced doubts that Israel has lost its deterrence capacity without U.S. aid.
Zionist media further amplified the blunder by broadcasting an image purportedly of “Defense Minister” Yoav Gallant viewing a scene from the recent Iranian strike. Channel Kan, however, exposed this image as a 2021 fire photo from Tehran.
Moreover, sources from “Israel Hayom” reported that both Netanyahu and Gallant fled to an underground bunker at the Defense Ministry after their attack on Iran.
The Israeli government’s handling of the situation was likened to the tactics of its collaborators. Al-Arabiya aired footage from an Israeli strike on Beirut, presenting it as scenes of explosions in Iran, with captions like “First footage from Tehran… massive explosions and flames.”
All eyes now turn to Iran’s next steps. Observers believe Tehran will leverage its response as a deterrent against Israel, claiming the right to retaliation under international law, especially since the Israeli attack resulted in Iranian casualties.
While Iran is unlikely to respond immediately, it has reserved the right to act, particularly after confirming four Iranian military personnel were killed in the Israeli assault. Iran’s approach emphasizes the long-term strategy of empowering the resistance axis to strain Israel’s stability on multiple fronts—from Gaza’s resilience, Lebanon’s unexpected endurance, and Yemen’s surprising strength.
Netanyahu’s rhetoric, aiming to assure Zionist allies, increasingly sounds hollow. Zionist settlers continue to protest, calling for his resignation and early elections. With their allies being left pondering the reality behind Netanyahu’s empty promises. The question remains whether they have the ability of an independent decision, just once in their lives without succumbing to U.S. and Israeli interests.