JERUSALEM – In a development shedding new light on the tense regional standoff between Israel and Iran, a senior Israeli military source has confirmed that prior to Iran’s April 2023 missile and drone attack, Israel took steps to prevent a broader conflict by conveying messages encouraging restraint. The disclosure comes after comments from Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force, in an interview commemorating the first anniversary of Iran’s unprecedented direct assault on Israeli territory.
Hajizadeh explained in Iranian state media that Israel, through Turkish and Egyptian diplomatic channels, urged Iran to limit the severity of its response following an alleged Israeli airstrike in Damascus that killed IRGC officers. This attack marked a major escalation, as Iran directly launched hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel—a departure from years of proxy warfare involving Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Iranian-backed groups. Israeli military and intelligence officials, along with their American and British counterparts, responded with a coordinated defensive operation, intercepting nearly all incoming projectiles using advanced air defense systems such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow.
The April attack took place mere months after the October 7 massacre by Hamas terrorists—the deadliest antisemitic atrocity since the Holocaust. That event triggered Israel’s Iron Swords War, a multi-front conflict against Iran’s network of proxies. Iran’s missile barrage, known domestically as “Operation True Promise 3,” was Iran’s avowed retaliation for the loss of its commanders in Syria. For Israel, it was the first direct attack from Iranian territory, underscoring the rapidly evolving threat from Tehran amid its intensifying regional ambitions.
Diplomatic sources confirm that, in the days leading up to the Iranian assault, Jerusalem utilized long-established diplomatic pathways through Ankara and Cairo to communicate red lines to Tehran. Senior defense analysts explain that such indirect messages are a standard element of Middle Eastern crisis management—even between bitter enemies. Israel indicated it would judge its response to Iran’s actions proportionately but warned that any mass-casualty or civilian-targeted attack would provoke overwhelming force. Both Turkey and Egypt have long histories as regional mediators and played key roles in preventing further regional escalation by relaying messages and reinforcing the dangers of wider conflict to Iran.
The IRGC’s response, heavily publicized in Iranian media, aimed as much at symbolic deterrence as real military impact. Despite launching over 300 missiles and drones, most were shot down by Israel and allied forces. Analysts say this displayed both Israel’s technological prowess and the layered defense that underpins its regional security doctrine. The IDF’s Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, emphasized that Israel was prepared for the scenario, leveraging intercepted intelligence and rapid deployment of air defense assets.
Tehran’s drive to shift the regional balance of power has been anchored in building and arming terror proxies. Israel has consistently argued that Iran’s efforts—visible not only in Gaza and Lebanon, but also through Shi’ite militias in Syria and Iraq and Houthi attacks from Yemen—represent a threat not only to Israel but to regional stability. Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz, have repeatedly stressed that Israel’s posture is one of self-defense in a multi-domain war imposed by Iran and its terror affiliates.
The April 2023 events reflect a new era, with Iran no longer operating solely through proxies but willing to engage in direct confrontation. This results in a more complex security environment for Israel, which continues to face persistent rocket, drone, and cyber attacks from the so-called “axis of resistance.” The civilian cost of Iranian terror support remains high; the October 7 massacre resulted in over 1,200 deaths, horrific atrocities, and ongoing hostage crises, facts meticulously documented by Israeli authorities and independent observers.
The episode also illustrates the dual nature of conflict management in the region: while public postures remain hostile, back-channel communications between Israel and Iran—via trusted intermediaries—persist and are sometimes crucial to averting wide-scale warfare. Western allies, led by the United States under President Donald Trump, have backed Israel’s right to defend itself, providing intelligence, military support, and advanced defense technology. Washington, London, and regional powers condemned Iran’s missile barrage while crediting regional diplomacy with containing the episode.
Turkey and Egypt are seen as key stabilizing actors, relaying urgent warnings about the risks of miscalculation, and drawing on a long history of mediating Middle Eastern crises. For Cairo, this fits a pattern of preventing wider escalation during Gaza conflicts, while Ankara—though often vocally critical of Israeli policy—has quietly played a valuable role in relaying messages between rivals.
Despite deterrence holding in the aftermath of the April attack, Israeli intelligence views the episode as part of Iran’s ongoing test of Israel’s resolve and capabilities. Persistence of proxy violence, combined with direct threats, forces Israel to continually refine its security doctrine, adapt technology, and maintain robust alliances—above all with the United States.
Looking ahead, Israel’s military and political leadership reaffirm their commitment to preventing Iranian entrenchment and stopping further terror operations against its citizens. The April events validate Israel’s doctrine: maintaining operational superiority, intelligence dominance, and diplomatic channels for crisis de-escalation remains essential for national survival amid existential threats.
As the region remains volatile, the story of the April missile attack underlines the ongoing stakes: Iran’s willingness to escalate directly, Israel’s unyielding response in self-defense, and the vital importance of both military preparedness and behind-the-scenes diplomacy in safeguarding peace and security.
