More than 100 IAF combat airplanes, including fighter jets and unmanned drones, traveled some 1,600 kilometers through enemy territory (reportedly Syria and Iraq) early Saturday, attacked more than a dozen sensitive military targets in a number of different waves throughout Iran, and – at least the fighter jets – safely returned home.
By any measure, that is a remarkable achievement.
There are some, including opposition members, who say that this did not go far enough, that this was not a strong enough response to Iran’s firing of some 200 ballistic missiles against Israel earlier this month, and that Israel should have used the legitimacy it had to respond to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities, its oil fields, or both.
And in a world where Israel did not have to take into account any other considerations – not Washington’s concerns or those of its allies in the Persian Gulf – then perhaps they are correct.
But we don’t live in such a world.
The US, which helped Israel deflect Iran’s two previous attacks, made it clear that they would not support an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities or its critical economic infrastructure. The Persian Gulf countries also let it be known that they were concerned that an attack on Iran’s oil fields would lead to an Iranian attack on their own oil industry infrastructure.
As a result, Jerusalem decided to “only”
go after some of the Islamic Republic’s military installations. At least for now. And the “at least for now” factor is an important one. According to foreign reports, the IAF took out air defense batteries and radars in Syria, Iraq, and Iran itself to pave a clear path for the attacking aircraft. In other words, Iran is completely exposed. Some of those batteries were reportedly state-of-the-art Russian S-300s.
Russia, engaged in Ukraine, is not going to be able to quickly replenish them. If the IAF attacked once – and cleared a path – it can do so again. The Iranians obviously realize this as well, which will surely affect their decisions on how, and if, to respond.
If the IAF was able to hit sensitive Iranian military sites Saturday, when Iran had anti-aircraft defenses up and working, then how much more will it be able to do so now with those defenses having been downgraded.
What that all means is that just because Israel did not hit the Iranian nuclear or oil installations now, it doesn’t mean that they won’t in the future. Iran, and everyone else in the region, has now seen Israel’s capabilities – and they are enormous.
Details of the strike
While the details of what Israel hit are still sketchy – a factory producing critical parts for ballistic missiles, ballistic missile launchers, drone factories – the targets seem to have been selected carefully with a number of objectives in mind.
The first was to strike a blow to Iran’s military capabilities and limit its ability to fire ballistic missiles at Israel. While the country has a massive ballistic missile arsenal, it is not unlimited, and if it is unable to produce a critical component because of Saturday’s attack, then it will have to factor in limited capacity in its decision on how to respond.
The second was to send a message to Iran, and everyone else in the region, that when Israel says that it will hit back hard against anyone who attacks, it means it. This means not only chopping off the tentacles of the Iranian octopus – Hamas and Hezbollah, which Israel is in the process of doing – but also going for the head of the octopus as well, sitting in Tehran.
This marks the first time Israel took responsibility for attacks in Iran – taking the fight directly to the enemy – and that is no insignificant line crossed.
And third, it struck this blow and sent this message while taking into consideration Washington’s concerns. With the presidential election just a little over a week away, Jerusalem had to weigh how its response would impact the election and – more importantly – how it would impact the policies of whoever wins.
Although one may assume that an attack on Iran’s nuclear or oil facilities might sit well with former president Donald Trump, it would not with Kamala Harris. Jerusalem was wise not to gamble on who will win, but rather acted in a way that either candidate could live with.
