What Was Iran Trying to Say?

By Guy Bechor, www.gplanet.co.il

What lies behind the attempt to crash an entire Emirati plane full of Israelis? Behind the scenes of a regime […] there are precise Iranian messages. What are they? Did the Iranians want a “mafia-style” hit? How to read the messages: did they mean to crash the plane? Careful! A war that topples the regime? And what did the philosopher Seneca say?

Behind an Omani pilot’s attempt to bring down the Flydubai passenger plane over Saudi territory there are clear Iranian messages. They are aimed mainly at Israel […] and at the United States. And they are messages of dangerous desperation.

“If there are no flights to Iran, then no one flies.” That is the line Iranian spokesmen have been repeating for several days. The near-total air boycott of passengers flying to and from Iran has paralyzed […]. It hurts a lot, and it is dangerous for the regime.

This month the United States imposed sweeping sanctions on Iran’s entire aviation sector, a true “economic isolation.” All Iranian airlines were added to the list of terrorist organizations. Foreign companies were barred from selling them fuel, landing services or tickets, on pain of being cut off from the dollar system.

The result is severe isolation in the air. The Emirates, Oman, Iraq and other countries [have joined the boycott], and Iran has responded by threatening the airports that comply. Russia, Turkey and Pakistan still operate Iranian flights, but the global isolation is closing in.

Oddly, the economic sanctions hurt less than people say. In videos from Tehran posted on YouTube in recent days, there is no sign of special pressure on the streets.

In response, Iran is already striking Saudi airports through its proxy groups, including the main airports in Riyadh and Jeddah. But it does not dare attack Ben Gurion Airport, because it fears Israel would use that as a pretext for a war of annihilation that brings down the regime. So it found another solution: [an attack on] Israelis, with no signature. Something that falls short of opening a war against the regime.

The dramatic meeting in the Emirates

The Emirates’ public announcement about […] hit Tehran hard. The official visit included […] of Israel and his wife, along with an Israeli wartime security team. Senior officials from other Arab countries were reportedly there too, and an agreement was reached […] against Iran when the war resumes.

And that is not all. The Tehran regime sees this as [an alliance under] Israeli [leadership], instead of the Gulf states surrendering to Tehran. The Americans are leaving, and today they evacuated all […] Iraq. The Kurds, as always, […]. Iran, Turkey and Israel are competing over who will lead the Arabs. This mysterious visit showed Iran that Israel is in the picture, and in a big way.

So this is a warning to the Emirates: if they keep up their military coordination with Israel, they will be hit […] three times over. Today it was an attempt to bring down an Emirati plane, with Israelis on board, over Saudi territory. And everyone in the Middle East understands who sent this message.

Above: the terror flight of the Israelis over Saudi territory, who had to endure this Iranian horror.

More broadly, the Abraham Accords created a reality Iran cannot tolerate. Israelis fly to Dubai and are welcomed warmly. There is tourism, business, open normalization and public agreements, including cooperation on joint defensive fortification (against suicide boats, for example).

Every tourist flight like this one, to Israel, shows Iran that the Shiite axis has failed to stop [normalization]. The central aim of October 7 was to stop normalization with Israel. So today’s attack was meant to bring fear back to the skies, shake passengers’ confidence and pressure the Emirates to back off.

There is a straight line from the October 7 mega-attack to today’s attempted air attack. In both cases Iran wanted to stop normalization.

Iran has attacked Gulf airspace before. But this time it used […] an insider. That lets it say, “We can reach anywhere,” in a softer way, [without paying] the price of a direct clash with Israel or the United States.

Did they want to destroy the plane?

Did the Tehran regime want to destroy the plane, or only to stage a major attack without […] fatal? There are two possibilities. Either the pilot was an amateur, which does not seem likely in an Iranian operation that needed to be precise, or he was told not to go all the way.

The big [question] is the cockpit. Since 9/11, the modern cockpit door locks automatically and is armored. [It cannot be opened] from outside, except with an emergency code that starts a 30-to-60-second timer. Had the terrorist pilot locked it and pressed the “Deny” switch, blocking entry completely, the passengers probably would not have gotten in in time, and the plane [would have crashed].

[There are other explanations:] the door may not have been fully locked during the struggle between the pilots, the captain may have managed to keep it accessible, or the attacker may have been too busy stabbing and putting the plane into a dive to block the entrance. The passengers heard screams, or the door opened; they went in, subdued the terrorist and pulled him out. Then they locked the door themselves.

In an attack like this, locking the cockpit is the first and essential task. That it was not done is strange. To be clear, we are not trying to defend the Tehran regime, only to understand the reasons behind the message it sent with this attack.

Does the regime want war?

Iran does not want an all-out war right now, because it knows that this time the regime could fall. A direct war would expose its weaknesses: [lack of] internal calm and the earlier blows to its military facilities. It prefers warning shots, deterrence, attrition and limited […] intimidation, which sow doubt about air safety and make the Gulf states ask whether [the alliance with Israel] is worth the risk. The same goes for Saudi Arabia.

The goal is not to bring down a plane. The goal is to make Israelis, Israel and its partners think twice before boarding a flight, attacking Iran or normalizing relations. The question is not how many people died, but how many panicked or changed [their plans].

This is the classic Iranian style: a bloody warning. An attack like this shows nervousness and worry in the Tehran regime, to the point of being willing to take dangerous action, [close to] crossing the big red line.

The question now is how Jerusalem and Washington will respond to these bloody messages. Before the midterm elections, going back to an intense war is not convenient right now, and the Iranians know it. That is the timing, the reason they chose this exact moment. The more serious the threat of toppling the regime becomes, the stronger and more dangerous [their messages] will be, and we need to be ready for that.

And Seneca, the Roman philosopher, said: Nullus perniciosior hostis est quam quem audacem angustiae faciunt. That is: “No enemy is more dangerous than one whom desperation has made bold.”