On the night between Monday and Tuesday (January 15-16), the Iranian regime used ballistic missiles to attack the Irbil area in the Kurdish region in northern Iraq and terrorist targets of Islamist elements in the Aleppo region in Syria. This was a response to the terrorist attack in Kerman, which took place near the grave of Qasem Soleimani on the anniversary of his death at the hands of the United States.
The Revolutionary Guards immediately accepted responsibility for the missile fire and claimed that it was "a response to the crimes committed against Iran as well as action against espionage and terrorist facilities used to fight Iran." The Iranians claim that the Mossad's headquarters in the Kurdistan area was also attacked in the operation, as well as a businessman who, the Iranians charge, was in contact with Israel.
The attacks serve additional Iranian strategic goals:
- A demonstration projected internally and externally of Tehran's military power, and a message to its enemies (mainly the US and Israel) about Iran's ability to strike anywhere in the Middle East if it so desires
- An implied response to Israel's activity against the Iranian presence in Syria, headed by the recent assassination of Sayyed Razi, the coordinator of the Quds Force's weapons transfers to Hezbollah
- A signal to the central Iraqi government in Baghdad regarding Tehran's dissatisfaction with the continued activity of anti-Iranian opposition elements under the cover of the Kurdish area
The Iranian attack is not the first of its kind, and is reminiscent of Iran's previous responses to ISIS attacks on its soil. However, this attack has at least two singular characteristics, first, the firepower range into Syria (about 1,200 km), and second, the fact that firing occurred out at the same time on targets in Iraq and on targets in Syria.
American elements have condemned the attack, underscored that no American assets were damaged, and even made sure to leak that the shooting was irresponsible and inaccurate. Implicitly, Washington clarifies that in the absence of direct damage to its assets, there is no reason for a response on its part, thereby preserving its ongoing interest in the policy of differentiation vis-à-vis Iran.
The bottom line: the Iranian response indeed serves a number of purposes for the regime, but it does not help Iran's fight against ISIS. Thus, the use of missiles demonstrates Iran's military capabilities, but it also reflects the few tools at its disposal to deal with the variety of security threats it faces.
On the night between Monday and Tuesday (January 15-16), the Iranian regime used ballistic missiles to attack the Irbil area in the Kurdish region in northern Iraq and terrorist targets of Islamist elements in the Aleppo region in Syria. This was a response to the terrorist attack in Kerman, which took place near the grave of Qasem Soleimani on the anniversary of his death at the hands of the United States.
The Revolutionary Guards immediately accepted responsibility for the missile fire and claimed that it was "a response to the crimes committed against Iran as well as action against espionage and terrorist facilities used to fight Iran." The Iranians claim that the Mossad's headquarters in the Kurdistan area was also attacked in the operation, as well as a businessman who, the Iranians charge, was in contact with Israel.
The attacks serve additional Iranian strategic goals:
The Iranian attack is not the first of its kind, and is reminiscent of Iran's previous responses to ISIS attacks on its soil. However, this attack has at least two singular characteristics, first, the firepower range into Syria (about 1,200 km), and second, the fact that firing occurred out at the same time on targets in Iraq and on targets in Syria.
American elements have condemned the attack, underscored that no American assets were damaged, and even made sure to leak that the shooting was irresponsible and inaccurate. Implicitly, Washington clarifies that in the absence of direct damage to its assets, there is no reason for a response on its part, thereby preserving its ongoing interest in the policy of differentiation vis-à-vis Iran.
The bottom line: the Iranian response indeed serves a number of purposes for the regime, but it does not help Iran's fight against ISIS. Thus, the use of missiles demonstrates Iran's military capabilities, but it also reflects the few tools at its disposal to deal with the variety of security threats it faces.