The Iranian response seems to have been calibrated to limit justification for an Israeli military response. After the Iranian attack on Israel, Iran's envoy to the UN said that the matter "can be deemed concluded".

The Israeli airstrike on April 1 had killed 16 people at the consulate, including Brigadier-General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a senior Quds Force commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and seven other IRGC officers. Two local civilians were also killed. Iranian ambassador Hossein Akbari alleged that the consulate building "was targeted with six missiles from Israeli F-35 warplanes".

An attack on a consular building is a violation of international law. However, diplomatic premises may be permissible targets if they are used for a military purpose. Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman, Rear-Admiral Daniel Hagari, later told reporters: "According to our intelligence, this is neither a consulate nor an embassy." He further added that the target struck was a "military building of Quds forces disguised as a civilian structure in Damascus".

Iran has not usually responded militarily to Israeli airstrikes against its officials in Syria, but for Iran the attack on its consulate crossed a red line. Not to respond would have made Iran and its leaders look weak to regional observers and to its own civilian population.

How then did Iran respond to the airstrike on its consulate?

Iran would have considered its violent response options - but they were limited. Options that might have been considered - such as an attack on an Israeli embassy or sinking a ship bound for Israel, would have involved other nations, probably to Iran's detriment. A direct strike from Iran against Israel was probably considered to be the only practical option.

The outcome was that around midnight on April 13, Iran launched some 170 drones, over 30 cruise missiles, and more than 120 ballistic missiles against "specified targets in Israeli occupied territory".

According to Iranian chief of staff Mohammad Bagheri, the primary targets included the Nevatim Airbase from which Israel launched the attack on the Iranian consulate, as well as the intelligence centre in the Israeli-occupied part of Mount Hermon which supplied the intelligence.

While the attack was large-scale to overcome Israeli air defences, it was carefully choreographed to minimise justification for a retaliatory attack against Iran.

According to Iran's Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, regional countries hosting US military bases were forewarned 72 hours before the Iranian attack. This suggests the US and Israel knew the attack was coming days in advance. Tehran also announced the launching of the attack, giving Israel several hours' notice of the attack drones' arrival into Israeli airspace.

President Joe Biden later announced that US forces deployed to the region helped Israel take down "nearly all of the incoming drones and missiles". Israel stated that 99 per cent of the drones and missiles were shot down by coalition forces under Operation Iron Shield, most before entering Israeli airspace. Those that did reach Israel caused minor damage and did not kill anyone. A Bedouin girl was reported injured.

To some extent this was a win for all parties. Iran claimed operational success with Israeli military sites "significantly damaged" - and thus honour served. President Biden claimed an operational success for US forces and reaffirmed Washington's "ironclad commitment" to its ally's security. And Israel claimed that its air defence measures, particularly the Arrow 3 and David's Sling systems, were very effective against external attack and for protecting the Israeli population.

READ MORE:

So where does this leave us now?

It seems unlikely that the US will want to take the matter further, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is widely regarded as a loose cannon with his own agenda. The US did not sanction the April 1 attack on the consulate, and President Biden will be concerned about what Israel might do next.

Netanyahu's government could escalate the situation further and try to draw in US forces against Iran, or Netanyahu could potentially gain leverage with the US by offering to avoid "an expanded regional conflict" in return for allowing Israel to achieve its "strategic goals in Gaza". In other words, providing diplomatic top cover while the IDF attempts to destroy Hamas in Rafah - with an inevitable increase in Palestinian civilian casualties.