The attack launched by the Israel Defense Forces on targets inside Iran sparked intense regional and global debate. Some Israeli circles expressed dissatisfaction with the limited scope of the attack, prompting careful examination of its dimensions and an assessment of its objectives and strategic impact.
Iran’s initial response immediately after the Israeli attack suggested it was merely psychological warfare. A well-informed Iranian source stated that “Israel’s claims of striking 20 sites in Iran are unrealistic and amount to psychological warfare,” maintaining that “the effects of the Israeli strike were minimal.”
The source added that the number of targets and attacks by the Israeli air force was far less than claimed, and continued: “The reports of 100 Israeli aircraft participating in this attack are also false, and Israel is attempting to exaggerate its weak attack.” Iran claimed that no Revolutionary Guard military headquarters in Tehran were hit, and that the attack was conducted from beyond Iran’s borders and resulted in minimal damage to military facilities.
The Iranian stance appears predictable, as one would not expect acknowledgment of the extent of damages due to potential implications regarding Iran’s retaliation. But can this suffice to end the cycle of attacks and counter-attacks, or does the situation demand military retaliation?
Analysis of the entire situation indicates that the attack was not executed independently from what could be described as the American sphere of command and control, as it occurred approximately one day after US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s statements in Doha, where he affirmed that his country supports Israel’s right to defend itself.
Evidence suggests the visit was intended to convey Israeli and American messages to Iran through Qatar, as confirmed by an Axios report citing three knowledgeable American sources, indicating that Israel notified Iran hours before executing its strike and urged the Iranians “not to retaliate.”
The sources revealed that this notification aimed to prevent broader escalation, and the report noted that the Iranians received a general advance notice about what would and would not be targeted. The Israeli message sought to contain the ongoing exchange between Israel and Iran and prevent wider escalation.
Close coordination and cooperation
THE CRUCIAL point here is that President Joe Biden’s administration thoroughly monitored the Israeli response, ensuring the attack aligned with the White House’s perspective, which remains cautious about any military escalation at present, particularly with US presidential elections approaching.
This suggests that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lacks full independence in handling regional conflicts, and the widespread media narrative of US detachment from Israel’s decision-making process regarding Iran is inaccurate. There exists complete coordination between both parties regarding military escalation steps.
Regarding the objectives of the Israeli attack within its actual implementation framework, the primary goal was to fulfill Israeli threats in response to Iranian missile attacks and demonstrate to Iran that Israel’s reach extends to any targets inside the Islamic Republic. This message was partially achieved and aims to restore the balance of power and establish mutual deterrence between both sides, without granting either side a strategic advantage or restoring Israeli military dominance.
This represents a partial setback for Israel, which sought to shift from a deterrence strategy to a decisive approach through a powerful strike that would restore Israel’s standing and regional supremacy and diminish Iran’s capability to launch strikes within Israeli territory, along with other scenarios such as leveraging the opportunity and the favorable strategic climate to dismantle the Iranian nuclear program.
However, the situation appears linked not only to American pressure but also to one of two scenarios: first, the possibility of having verified intelligence about the destructive potential of any Iranian counter-response, including confirmation of the Iranian regime’s possession of actual nuclear capabilities that suggest the conflict could escalate into a nuclear confrontation, even with tactical weapons.
Second, the United States reaching a preliminary arrangement through regional mediators to halt mutual escalation between Iran and Israel and prevent any movement toward a comprehensive regional conflict.
THE EXAMINATION of Israel’s military action indicates that Netanyahu’s administration chose a measured strike as part of Operation Days of Repentance. The initial phase of the Israeli attack targeted Iranian air defense systems, while subsequent phases focused on missile and drone bases and weapons production facilities, according to Israeli sources. This attack achieves basic Israeli objectives but falls short of neutralizing Iran’s ability to threaten Israel.
Therefore, the Israeli decision emerged as a compromise between American constraints and Israeli strategies. It also does not completely prevent Israel from launching future attacks, as it poses a challenge to Iran should it contemplate launching a full-scale war against the Jewish state. The United States emphasized that it directly and indirectly informed Iran that further attacks on Israel would have consequences.
Far from being ineffective, the Israeli strike was meticulously calculated. This strategic precision accounts for the extended deliberation needed to determine both the decision to strike and its exact timing. The attack reflects Netanyahu’s recent approach to military campaigns, which typically begin as limited operations and gradually intensify, as demonstrated in Gaza and southern Lebanon.
However, this pattern is not guaranteed in the Iranian case, as developments depend on the opposing party’s response and the Israeli government’s commitment to maintaining its public image and reinforcing its position that the conflict with Iran is defensive, not offensive. The objective is to present Israel to the world as acting in self-defense to gain advantages in the public relations sphere.
The attack aligns with Netanyahu’s own declarations that the strike on Iran would target only military facilities and avoid nuclear and oil installations. This limitation proved strategically vital for Netanyahu, as executing the attack within his promised scope both advanced his political agenda and diminished the standing of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who had earlier vowed the strike on Iran would be “lethal, precise, and surprising” – leaving Iranians bewildered about the nature and method of the attack.
In practice, the operation involved advance notification of timing and targets, a decision made by politicians based on precise calculations and specific strategic information, resulting in Gallant losing leverage in his political rivalry with Netanyahu.
The writer is a UAE political analyst and former Federal National Council candidate.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.