Looking through the fog of propaganda, it is becoming clear that the Iranian move on Israel was an astounding success.

The fact that most of the 300+ missiles/ drones were shot down is neither here nor there. My understanding (see first part of this video) is that the bulk of these were cheap and in many cases old (near obsolete and close to being decommissioned) weapons, which were effectively fired as decoys, to allow the, I think 7 hypersonic missiles to get through, which all of them did, hitting an airbase in the Negev which is used to launch the F-35s which are bombing Gaza (and which bombed the Israeli consulate in Damascus), and a military intelligence base.

The Iranian expenditure was therefore minimal, perhaps $50-60millon, compared to an estimated $1.3billion spent by the genocidal entity and its backers on shooting them down.

I have not yet seen any pictures of the damage caused at these target sites, but have no reason to believe the Israeli claims that it was ‘minimal,’ especially given the footage that is available of the huge explosions caused by impact.

Anyone claiming the attack was a military failure must believe that Iran genuinely intended and believed that all (or most) of these cheap obsolete slow-travelling missiles were not going to be shot down. This is completely unfeasible. More likely is that the aim all along was to hit the two military targets in Israel with a small number of hypersonic missiles, and this aim was achieved; the operation can therefore be seen as a battlefield success.

In addition to that, it allowed the Iranians to test these new missiles, and establish that the much-vaunted ‘Iron Dome’ defence system – as well as the combined firepower of the USA, the UK and France – were unable to stop them.

In the words of Professor Mohammad Mirandi, that attack has now created a new ‘military equation’ in the region. The years of ‘strategic patience,’ where Iran has barely responded to the incessant Israeli attacks on its forces in Syria, for example, are now over. Iran is now saying that it will respond, forcefully, with direct attacks on Israel, should its forces in the region be attacked in the future. And it has been proved that these missiles can penetrate all the combined Israeli-FUKUS defences.

In stark contrast to the days following October 7th, the last major attack penetrating Israel’s defences, where the west were virtually begging Israel to wipe out Gaza with their mantras about “self-defence” and the need to “eliminate Hamas”, today all the talk is of “restraint” and “avoiding escalation.” It is one thing to conduct endless massacres against a starving population, but quite another to engage a militarily-advanced regional power in a potentially all-out war. Israel’s options are thus very limited.

Where are the Palestinians in all this? There may or may not be some practical impediments to the genocide by the damage caused to the airbase, that is hard to discern. Likewise for the Iron Dome system – have its resources been depleted enough to allow more Palestinian rockets to get through than would normally be the case? I don’t know, but I know such rockets have been falling in Israel in recent days (when usually they would be shot down). But more than that, obviously this is a huge morale boost for the Palestinian resistance and indeed the whole Palestinian population to see their enemy humbled. By highlighting Israeli weakness and impotence – and the cowardice of its allies – the psychological barrier to believing that an end to Zionist rule is possible has been delivered a deadly blow.

One other thought – where are the Russians in all this?

I consider this question based on two assumptions, or lets call them working hypotheses (and please correct me if you think they are wrong!) – 1. That Russia seeks not to bring down the twin pillars of counter-revolution in the region (Zionism and the House of Saud), but rather take over these tools of colonial control from the US and become their new patrons. 2. The Iranian attack on Israel would not have happened without Russian approval.

With this in mind, how does the Iranian attack fit into the long-term Russian goal of eliminating the US presence in the region?

Let’s look at what is likely happening now. Netanyahu is desperately trying to find a way to ‘respond’ – to ‘reestablish deterrence’ by launching a retaliatory attack on Iran that will NOT provoke the repeated, more intense, missile barrage that Iran has promised should this happen.

Who can help him achieve that? Who has influence enough over Iran to be able to restrain their response to any retaliation? Certainly not the US.

If I was Putin, this is what I would be telling Netanyahu: ‘Look at your ‘allies.’ They are pathetic. They can’t defend you. And now they are telling you you are not even allowed to defend yourself.

We understand Israel. We are also under attack, from Islamist terrorists, and from upstart neighbouring states, just like you. We are also misunderstood and demonised by the west. The west just wants to tie your hands with namby-pamby liberal human rights guff. None of them have experienced war, and none of them knows how to win one.

Work with us. If you want to retaliate we can find a way. We can ensure the Iranian response is limited. Can the US do this for you? They can’t help you at all. Only we can protect you from Iran’

And in this way, the Russians can slowly start to eclipse the US in the region – but much more powerfully, as patron of BOTH Israel AND Iran. And thereby create a ‘peace’ between them both – and which they both want – which the US cannot do. in fact, the US has limited power over either – its unconditional support for Israel means it has given up its leverage there, whilst its ongoing economic war with Iran means it has no leverage there either.

Finally, what was the Israeli intent in bombing the Iranian consulate in Damascus two weeks ago?

I think there are some comparisons to be drawn here with the Turkish shooting down of a Russian fighter jet on the Syrian border in 2015.

My analysis of this at the time was that it was primarily a test of the West’s willingness to confront Russia. Turkey understood that it was being used by the west as a proxy against Russia in Syria, to weaken Russia by supporting Russia’s enemies there. But it wanted to know that, if push came to shove, would the US have Turkey’s back? If things spiralled, and Turkey actually came face-to-face with Russia in war, would the US stand with them? Or would they leave them to deal with it by themselves?

The answer was – no, the US were happy to use Turkey against Russia, but was not willing to back them militarily against Russia if it came to a direct confrontation.

This led Turkey to very quickly reach a rapprochement with Russia.

Israel, in its attack on the Iranian consulate was perhaps doing the same thing. By provoking a direct confrontation with Iran, it wanted to test its ‘allies’ willingness to actually back them in such a fight. The US has been pouring scorn on Iran for decades – but would it actually be willing to take them on in a direct confrontation with Israel? The answer, again, seems to be – don’t bank on it. Hence, again, Israel may well be drawing the conclusion that it would be better to reach accommodation with them, and their Russian backers, than to rely on the US ‘having their back’ should things escalate.

The outcome Russia and Israel now likely seek would be such an accommodation – basically, Iran’s own version of the Abraham Accords, with the Russians as guarantors. I would hope Iran is not also seeking this outcome, but I wouldn’t bet on it. This would, of course, be the absolute worst outcome for the Palestinians. But history has many examples of these big confrontations being, not steps on the road to victory, but the opening salvos of a coming collaboration. In hindsight, after all, was the Yom Kippur war not merely the prelude to Camp David?

Am I being too cynical here?

I certainly hope so. But that’s how I see it.