Iran launches Shahed drones toward Israel in early April

Iran launches Shahed drones toward Israel in early April

The night of April 12 to 13, 2024, was marked by reports from a forum user claiming Iran launched dozens of Shahed 136 drones into Israeli territory. The operation, anticipated for days through a series of warnings, air exclusion zones, and NOTAM alerts over central Iran, culminated—according to this account—in Tehran’s first direct attack on Israel after years of covert warfare. Initial announcements spoke of an imminent strike that later shifted to the first weekend between April 12 and 13, due to pressure from religious leaders who wanted it to coincide with the end of Ramadan.

The preceding sequence was as noisy as the attack itself. Air exclusion zones stretched from Qom to the country’s largest missile base, civil aviation was warned to stay clear, and a Yemeni militia announced 400,000 soldiers ready to join the fight. Everything pointed to something brewing.

What was known before the attack: signs anticipating the launch

The trail leading up to the attack was unusually visible. A notice was issued to air missions in Iran’s central desert regarding missile activity, with urgent orders for civil aviation to avoid the area. The air exclusion zone extended from Qom to the country’s most famous missile base, an unusual perimeter length suggesting a test or large-scale deployment.

The Houthi militia in Yemen, meanwhile, announced that 400,000 soldiers were ready to fight alongside Iran. This figure, impossible to verify independently, served primarily as a deterrent message: the axis was activating on multiple fronts.

In Israel, according to circulating information, defenses were being prepared with available resources, along with a subsequent counterattack once the offensive began. The logic of the exchange was written before the first drone took off.

The attack that arrived and the expected counterattack

Reports of dozens of Shahed 136 drones launched toward Israel confirmed what had been announced. The lingering question was not whether Iran would attack, but what results it would achieve and how Israel would respond. That is the core issue: the attack itself may be more symbolic than decisive, but Israel’s counterattack could trigger an irreversible escalation.

Some argue the Iranian response would be proportional and calculated, never an escalation, because Tehran has no interest in open conflict. The scenario depicted was a precision strike, even against an embassy, executed with enough calibration for Israel to accept it as just, leaving no excuse for total war.

The most pessimistic calculation started from the opposite premise: that Israel was eager to jump at any provocation and that any impact, however controlled, would serve as a pretext. In that scenario, the attack-response-counterattack sequence would accelerate within days.

What happens if Iran and Israel enter open war

The hypothesis of a Third World War appeared in the initial analysis as an extreme scenario, conditional on everything aligning conveniently. It is not a prediction, but an analytical framework: if the conflict regionalizes, with Houthis, Iraqi militias, and Hezbollah activated, the board ceases to be bilateral.

From a geopolitical perspective, the conflict could redefine the Middle East toward positions further from the United States and closer to China, a dynamic already observed in Africa. This shift in axes is likely more relevant in the medium term than the number of drones intercepted in one night.

Economic impact also enters the equation. The Red Sea, already strained by Houthi attacks, is a critical route for trade between Asia and Europe. Any escalation adds pressure on freight, insurance, and energy prices, though available material does not allow quantifying the effect with concrete figures.

Skepticism: predictions adjusted on the fly

Not everyone bought the narrative. Part of the analysis noted that predictions moved as days passed: first the attack was imminent, then it shifted to the end of Ramadan, then it settled on the weekend of April 12-13. Each adjustment was presented as confirmation of the original source.

The skeptical argument is simple: when a prediction is reformulated so many times until it finally coincides with a news event, the accuracy is more a statistical artifact than an informational achievement. The answer to that is equally simple: NOTAM alerts, air exclusion zones, and military movements were verifiable before the attack, not after.

What remains is an undeniable fact: the attack occurred. What remains unresolved is whether this was the start of something bigger or the calculated closure of a retaliation cycle. With Israel preparing its response and the regional axis on alert, the analysis stalls exactly there.