An attack on Iran’s embassy building in Damascus, the Syrian capital, on April 1, 2024, killed senior figures in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force. How Iran would respond to Israel’s escalation became a subject of debate both internationally and within Iran. Officials and opinion leaders said Iran would certainly respond, but would determine the nature and timing of its retaliation itself. As Western powers, particularly the United States, began telling the world that Iran would retaliate, attention turned to the seriousness of the situation and the possibility of a significant attack this time. On the evening of April 13, 2024, an attack was launched directly from Iran against Israel for the first time in the Islamic Republic’s history.
In a statement after the attack, the IRGC thanked the Iranian people and said it “would not allow enemies seeking to undermine Iran’s unity and strength of faith to succeed.” It added that “the deterrent power Iran has acquired will make it more resolute against enemy camps,” and announced that “the operation’s success was achieved through the support and cooperation of the Iranian people and various political groups.” The statement concluded by emphasizing that “this meaningful victory was achieved with God’s help and the Mahdi’s support,” and that “True Promise” would strengthen the Islamic Republic’s regional role and provide an important foundation for security.
Another institution to comment was Iran’s regular armed forces, the Artesh. Speaking at a ceremony, Brigadier General Mohammad Akraminia, deputy head of the army’s military and political department, said Operation True Promise carried several messages. The first, he said, was “to the Iranian people”: “The armed forces will bow to no power in protecting the people’s interests, and despite years of sanctions, they have been able to produce the world’s most advanced drones and missiles, using that equipment during the operation.” Another message, he emphasized, was directed at enemy forces: “The armed forces will respond forcefully to attacks on Iran; there will be no compromise with any foreign power, and the nation will make no concessions in protecting the country’s security and interests.” Saying the strategic balance in the Middle East had now changed, Akraminia also noted that “Iran can become the foundation and center of regional security and defense arrangements.”
How Did the Iranian Press Approach Operation True Promise Before and After the Attack?
Between Israel’s strike on Damascus and Iran’s response, the Iranian press predominantly stressed that Iran would retaliate appropriately. Numerous columns and reports also examined why Israel had carried out the strike. Broadly, they argued that Benjamin Netanyahu’s embattled government wanted to expand the Israel–Gaza confrontation into an Iran–US confrontation to repair its deteriorating standing and image both internationally and at home. It therefore needed a move that could break it out of this predicament, and achieved that by directly attacking Iranian territory. This was the theme developed in the press throughout the period.
Afterward, the Iranian press presented the response as forceful, surprising, sufficient, and “devastating.” Arman-e Melli, for example, ran the headline “Strategic, Calculated, and Decisive,” while Kayhan declared, “Iran Opens the Gates of Hell to Israel.” Jam-e Jam used “The Humiliation of the Zionists” as its headline, and Khorasan led with “The End of Strategic Patience.” The press also gave extensive coverage to celebrations and international reactions. To demonstrate that all sections of the public supported the attack, it reported and disseminated reactions from almost every level of society, the bureaucracy, and politics.
Interior Minister Ahmad Vahidi said opinion leaders who shape public views, particularly academics and intellectuals, needed to “analyze and assess” the operation’s dimensions. In one speech, he said: “Of course, the great Iranian people and their youth appreciate its value. As the world closely follows the changes this operation has brought to regional and international relations, academics and intellectuals should discuss, analyze, and assess these major decisions, the operation, and its consequences.” This rhetoric can be seen as a clear indication that the establishment will continue to use the issue as a propaganda instrument in the period ahead. The tone of the press will therefore continue to reflect that approach.
Reactions to Operation True Promise From Iranian Politicians
Iranian politicians and statesmen also responded to the attack. Speaking at a ceremony, President Ayatollah Ebrahim Raisi said: “Following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, True Promise showed that Israel’s strength is as fragile as a spider’s web.” Emphasizing Iran’s defense industry and military capacity, he said: “The Iranian army rests fundamentally on religious faith and God, but is also equipped with advanced technology, training, and military capabilities.” He added that “whereas the army depended on foreign specialists before the Islamic Revolution, it now conducts all its technological and military activities with its own experts,” describing this as “a factor that distinguishes Iran from other countries in the region and makes its armed forces independent.”
Ali Larijani wrote on social media that “the Islamic Revolution’s path of struggle has borne fruit.” Former Vice President Eshaq Jahangiri said Israel’s attack on Iran’s consulate in Damascus and the killing of seven people had made a response necessary. That response, he said, had to be calculated and delivered without expanding the war. Iran had given a limited response in legitimate self-defense, and it was necessary to support any action that increased the Islamic Republic’s deterrence. Hujjat al-Islam Seyyed Hassan Khomeini described the attack as “courageous” and the operation as “a source of pride.” He said it had become “an unavoidable necessity because of the Zionist regime’s arrogance and mistaken assessments,” and called it “a strategic decision demonstrating Iran’s strength, security, and national pride.”
Former President Hassan Rouhani also offered his assessment. Referring to Iran’s response, he called Israel’s attack “stupid” and said: “The whole world sees that the Islamic Republic of Iran did not initiate military action. Israel began the attack, and Iran merely responded. I hope the Zionists have learned their lesson and received their punishment, and will not continue their attacks. If they wish to continue, they will naturally receive a response. But we hope they will not repeat their stupidity.”
Hujjat al-Islam Seyyed Mehdi Qoreishi, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s representative in West Azerbaijan province, also assessed the operation. Speaking at Friday prayers in Urmia, he said “the Zionist regime has attacked Iran’s interests and targeted its scientists for years.” After the attack on the Damascus consulate, he said, “the Supreme Leader stated that a forceful response was necessary, and the regime accordingly decided to retaliate firmly.” Qoreishi stressed that the response “complied with international law and warned the Zionist regime that another attack would bring harsher retaliation.” In his view, Iran had proved that the Zionist regime and its supporters were not invincible.
Reactions to Operation True Promise From the Arts Community
Various Iranian artists also supported the operation. Television actor Ahmad Najafi said he had stayed awake following the news until seven in the morning: “What Iran did demonstrates our country’s strength. We do not submit to bullying. It shows our dignity. We showed that we could do it, and we struck. This was a serious warning to Israel and can be seen as something the public demanded of the Islamic Republic.” Another television actor, Houshang Tavakoli, said: “It would be wrong to describe Iran’s move as retaliation. It was a natural response to Israel’s behavior and the massacres in Gaza over the past six months.” Director Rashid Hajatmand said: “When the Israeli regime attacked Iranian territory—that is, our embassy—they needed a slap, and I think it was a good one. They seem still to be asleep and not to have realized what kind of slap they received.” Well-known presenter Fatemeh Afsharian said: “I was awake when I heard the news. From the Supreme Leader’s remarks, we expected this time to be different and something major to happen. I first learned about it on Twitter, then woke up the household when I saw the television ticker, and we watched the news until morning.”
How Did the Public React?
After the attack, footage of celebrations in various Iranian cities began appearing on social media. The press likewise circulated numerous reports and images reflecting public support and enthusiasm. Yet, given the sharp polarization of Iranian society, major events can produce starkly different views and reactions at opposite ends of the spectrum. Since no scientific data can currently be presented, it would be wrong to make definitive judgments or offer percentages about public reactions. A more subjective assessment, however, would be that Iranians tend largely to side with their state in conflicts and foreign policy matters, and may therefore have received the response to the Damascus attack with considerable approval.
This article was first published in Kriter on May 1, 2024.