TEHRAN- In the early hours of Friday, April 19, Israeli agents inside Iran along with the regime's warplanes, carried out terrorist attacks against three places in our country. After these ineffective actions, mainstream Western media became abuzz with exaggerated accounts of the incidents. 

Why did the regime make such a move and why did the media try to talk it up? 

After Iran's promise of true punishment, Israeli officials at various levels spoke every day about the necessity of a reciprocal response. Four days after the blow to them, on April 19 and following extensive rhetoric, attacks were carried out inside Iran, Iraq, and Syria through the regime's fighter jets and native agents. 

It is still not clear how the attacks unfolded but if we were to consider the most outrageous and exaggerated claims made on Friday night as correct, Israeli warplanes might have fired missiles at Iran from Iraqi soil, while drones were launched as part of sabotage efforts as military installations in East Azerbaijan Province, Isfahan Province and other central areas.

Simultaneous with these actions, mainstream Western media and critics of Iran, without mentioning the exact dimensions of the story, exaggerated the regime's attempt at dealing a blow to Iran and announced an expected decline in tension between Iran and Israel. 

If the goal has been achieved, why does Netanyahu shy away from taking responsibility and claiming a heroic stance? What's notable however is that considering the history of Netanyahu and his extremist cabinet's warmongering rhetoric, the attack targeting Iran was largely underwhelming and even unpalpable for some of the citizens living near the Army base targeted in Isfahan. Seeing that people carried on with their daily lives without any worries, the supposed assault on Friday seemed to resemble the regime's previous terrorist and sabotage attacks, rather than a response to a large-scale operation.

Strangely enough, like other terrorist behaviors of the regime, despite the emphasis of its leaders on the necessity and legitimacy of the response, the Zionist regime did not accept responsibility for this attack and remained silent. This hesitancy to take responsibility, in the face of the Islamic Republic of Iran's official announcement of punitive attacks on areas under the occupation of this regime, may have several reasons.

First, the belief in the failure of the April 19 operation in the eyes of the regime's decision-makers and senior analysts: It is a fact that the Israeli regime does not take responsibility for the terrorist attacks it conducts against Iran. It also did not officially take the blame for the strike that assassinated Iran's top military generals in the country's consulate in Damascus. It was, however, expected that the regime would take responsibility this time to satisfy public opinion inside the occupied territories. It seems that the recent attack was so underwhelming that the regime's authorities did not think it was worth taking responsibility for it.

The second reason for the Zionist regime's silence on this issue seems to be the anticipation of an unresolved retaliatory action. Despite the Western media's efforts to support this regime and prevent tensions from escalating in the West Asia region by highlighting successful actions, past experiences have revealed that Netanyahu and his cabinet pay attention to these gestures and positions only to the extent that they serve their interests. Moreover, they are focused on advancing their policies beyond that. This behavior is especially noticeable in the current cabinet and has become more pronounced following the Al-Aqsa Storm Operation.

The third reason for the regime's hesitation to claim responsibility for this attack may stem from its desire to avoid revealing its regional mercenaries and collaborators in Iran. Without their participation, the MAV attack was incomplete and lacked significant impact. Moreover, the disruptive actions of internal saboteurs not only fail to shift the balance of power in favor of the regime but also reinforce its terrorist image.

The commotion in previous days, largely driven by the Zionist regime and its propaganda tools, has upset the delicate equilibrium between Iran and this regime. 
The direct assault on two Israeli military and security facilities, that were instrumental in the terrorist attack on the Iranian embassy, marked a shift in Iran's level of confrontation with this regime. 

Although earlier communications, the execution method, and the weaponry used suggest that Iran didn't seek an annihilation of Israeli infrastructure, it sent a clear message that Iran's strategic patience towards the regime's undue aggression has worn thin. And that Iran will not sit idly in the face of attacks on its targets and possesses both the capability and resolve for direct confrontation under such circumstances. 

In essence, Operation True Promise has reshaped the power dynamics between Iran and the Zionist regime. In light of this, Netanyahu and his cabinet's recent attempts to justify and coordinate attacks on Iran were aimed at rebalancing access. Now the question arises: is accepting responsibility for a direct attack on Iranian territory a prerequisite for reshaping or altering the regime's access to Iran? If this goal has been achieved, why does Netanyahu shy away from taking responsibility and claiming a heroic stance?
Based on the three reasons mentioned it seems that what happened on Friday morning was not a proper response to Iran’s punishment of  Israel from the viewpoint of the Zionist leaders. Rather, other reasons forced the Israeli regime, the United States, other Israeli supporters and Netanyahu to accept and implement this hasty terrorist act.
One of the challenges of the Biden administration in dealings with the Zionist regime has been to show its unquestionable support for the Tel Aviv regime and simultaneously demonstrate its concern for human rights, which is an important issue for the ruling Democrats.

On April 30, when the draft resolution was submitted to the UN General Assembly to accept Palestine as a full member, it was vetoed at the 15-member UN Security Council by the United States, though the bid was backed by almost all countries.

Casting veto for the draft resolution took place while the Americans have been demonstrating contradictory behavior in the past month while condemning certain horrific acts of the Zionist regime that are hard to believe and opposing a looming attack on the southern city of Rafah in the Gaza Strip. 

What can be said about this hasty and ineffective act by the Zionist regime, which won extensive media hype in the West, is that the United States and the Zionist regime made a joint attempt to deflect public opinion by aborting the resolution for the full membership of Palestine despite claims by Washington that it seeks a two-state solution in the occupied territories 

Probably, it is the reason why this attack was choreographed for media hype rather than military importance or changing the balance of power so that the contradictory behaviors of the Americans go unnoticed by the world’s public opinion.

If the draft resolution for full membership of Palestine had been approved it would have dealt a great political blow to Netanyahu and undermined the status of his government.  

For this reason, he resorted to this terrorist and hasty move to divert public opinion and at the same present a peaceful image of the Americans to show that if the balance of power between the Israeli regime and Iran had not been established at least it sent good praise for Biden in backing Israel.