Israel in the Waiting Line
Israel and the world on Saturday were waiting to see whether the overnight airstrikes by Israel against Iran would end the latest round of exchanges between the two powerful military forces in the region or signify another step towards a broader conflict.
The exact dimensions of the four-hour wave of attacks by Israeli warplanes were still being assessed, but there was no news of widespread casualties, and reports indicated that only military sites were targeted, not Iran’s oil fields or nuclear research labs, suggesting that Israel was seeking a measured and limited retaliation for Tehran’s missile attacks on October 1.
Military analysts and diplomats who expected a more extensive and destructive attack expressed hope that tensions would at least temporarily decrease.
Iran’s air defense force, in a statement broadcast by state media, announced that most of the Israeli missiles had been intercepted, although limited damage was reported in some areas, and officials were assessing the extent of the attack.
Israeli experts said the attacks went beyond a symbolic act and might have significantly damaged Iran’s air defense and missile capabilities.
They said it would take time to determine whether Iran would be compelled to respond militarily or could declare the matter closed, as both sides did after the limited missile and drone exchanges in April.
Jonathan Conricus, a senior researcher at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, says the Israeli attack seems to have achieved several objectives, with the most important parts of Iran’s air defense destroyed and warehouses containing hundreds of missiles targeted.
He notes that a more precise assessment will be possible in the coming days with the analysis of satellite images. He also says that Tehran, with all its regime targets and sensitive infrastructure, may now be completely vulnerable to future Israeli attacks.
Israeli officials privately stated that Saturday’s operation was designed to deliver a deterrent blow to Iran after Iran fired nearly 200 ballistic missiles earlier this month, in such a way that the Iranian regime would not need to continue the cycle of retaliation. According to someone familiar with Israel’s plans, the attack was ultimately designed to minimize casualties and control its impact to a level where Iran could deny major losses and manage the situation. This person says, ‘We wanted to give the Iranians an opportunity not to escalate the tension.’
Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies based in Tel Aviv, says these attacks create a complex dilemma for Tehran, which is committed to responding to any significant attack. He says the ball is now in Iran’s court.
While Israel did not attack nuclear or oil facilities, it carried out a significant and extensive attack that could be challenging for Iran.
White House officials immediately after the completion of the attacks expressed hope that Israel had achieved the right balance.
A senior government official said the President and his national security team had worked with Israel in recent weeks to encourage Israel to respond in a targeted and proportionate manner with the least risk to civilians.
The official added that it seems exactly that happened tonight. He said this attack should reduce the risk of further escalation.
However, some Israeli military experts said these attacks were likely limited due to U.S. political pressure ahead of the November 5 elections, and after the elections, Israel might decide to take more decisive action.
Amir Avivi, a reserve brigadier general in the Israeli Defense Forces and former deputy head of military readiness, says war with Iran will last months. What will happen and when largely depends on developments in the United States.
He adds that the historical opportunity to carry out deeper attacks in Iran over the coming months is not one that Israel will easily pass up. The strategic goal is ultimately to create conditions where Iran cannot pose any threat, neither now nor in the future.
Israelis were pleased with the support expressed by Washington and other allies after Saturday’s operation. A person familiar with Israel’s planning says coordination with the Americans was very close.
He added that the Israeli government was also encouraged by the British statement that Israel has the right to defend itself.
Recently, the British have been tough on Israel.
However, the limited scope of the attacks was condemned by Israelis who wanted a more decisive attack.
Many hardliners, including former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, had urged the government to use these expected attacks to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons research program.
Tally Gotliv, a member of the Knesset from the Likud party led by Benjamin Netanyahu, wrote on the social network X that not attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and oil reserves is a serious mistake.
We missed an opportunity to weaken Iran’s potential to become a nuclear power for years.
Others said these attacks should have caused more damage to Iran’s oil facilities and economic infrastructure.
Yair Lapid, the opposition leader, wrote on social media that we could and should have exacted a much higher price from Iran.
Avigdor Lieberman, former defense minister and head of another opposition party, also said that unfortunately, it seems that instead of imposing a real cost, the Israeli government has once again resorted to symbolic actions and public relations. However, these attacks have given Israel a better understanding of Iran’s ability to defend itself against attacks.
Avivi, who advocates attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, says this gives Israel a very good understanding that we can confront them. One of the key elements is whether Hezbollah, supported by Iran, has the capability or willingness to respond from Lebanese soil on behalf of Tehran.