OPINION – The Lessons Israel Must Learn From the Iranian Attack
Despite Israeli bluster, Israel’s air defense is not prepared for simultaneous aerial attack from several fronts
Whether you like it or not, Iran’s strike on Israel last weekend turned the Islamic Republic into a key player in the region.
One must be clearheaded about the motives behind Iran’s attack. Iran did not attack Israel to express solidarity with the Palestinian people or in defense of the Palestinian cause. Nor did it launch its missiles on behalf of Hizbullah, Syria, or the Houthis in Yemen. Its attack was motivated by a political strategy of shattering Israel’s aerial hegemony in the Middle East. From now on, Israel’s air force must understand that a tough new player has joined the race for aerial superiority in the region.
The Iranian message was clear. Any Israeli strike on any Iranian target, whether in Lebanon, Syria, or Iran itself, will be met by a ruthless and immediate retaliatory attack of the same magnitude. The equilibrium of Israel’s strategic deterrence has been devastated to the extent that Israel may need decades to restore it if it succeeds in restoring it at all.
Had Iran aimed for a deadly strike on Israel, it wouldn’t have told half the world about its intention to strike, naming locations and time frames. Iran only wanted to make a point. And it did so well, with little arrogance and great care to avoid any surprise escalation. The primary outcome of the strike for Iran was increasing its bargaining chips in the talks with the US on Tehran’s nuclear capabilities that have dragged on since being opened a few years ago.
Israel needs US support in any upcoming strike it plans on Iran. If Iran decides to break all the rules, turn the table upside down, and launch a massive attack on Israel, or if escalation between the two parties gets out of control and turns into an all-out war, Israel’s chances of defending itself without outside help are minimal. The gimmick attack last weekend was difficult for Israel’s air defenses to abort. Had it not been for military intervention from the US and other Western allies and assistance of neighboring Arab countries—that allegedly intercepted and shot down some of the weaponized drones—Israel would have faced a very unpleasant scenario, which could have involved numerous human casualties and widespread destruction of areas hit by incoming missiles and drones.
The missile strike over the weekend was a test balloon through which Iranian military leaders wanted to gauge what political reactions and military challenges to expect should they decide to attack Israel in the future. It was also a test balloon for the Israelis, who learned the limits of their aerial defense capacity. Regardless of whether any future Iranian assault would be in retaliation to an Israeli attack—or simply an Iranian decision to initiate an open war against what it likes to call “the Zionist entity”—Israel will need its big brother, the US, to be there to help defend its skies from incoming missiles.
The Iranian attack on Israel brought to mind the US decision to overthrow the regime of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein because of the 39 Scud missiles Iraq launched against Israel during the 1991 Gulf War. Firing rockets against Israeli targets was something neither the US nor Israel accepted. The US asked Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, a hard-line right-wing loyalist of Revisionist Zionist Ze’ev Jabotinsky, to stand down without firing one shot against Iraq. In return, the US promised to punish Saddam Hussein and overthrow his regime. The US kept its promise, and Saddam’s regime was toppled in April 2003.
Will the US do the same to Iran? I don’t think so. Why? Because back then, Iraq stood alone, facing a broad international coalition led by the US, while impotent Russia was seated on the side bench watching from afar. Today’s Iran is not an isolated country that the US can quickly attack without considering the possibility of that attack causing a global conflict equivalent to World War III. Russia is Iran’s strategic ally. The highly sophisticated and advanced weaponry the Russians manufacture is already in Iranian hands, including batteries of S-300 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles that are capable of intercepting and shooting down the US’s flagship fighter bomber, the F-35.
Imagine a situation where missiles are simultaneously launched against Israel by Hizbullah in Lebanon, the Syrian army, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iran. Each of those groups has an undeniable missile capacity that perhaps won’t destroy Israel but can at least cause a severe headache and plight to the homefront. Israel can quickly identify every missile that is launched from Iranian batteries in Iran because the time factor is on its side, giving the opportunity for air defenses to intercept and shoot down those missiles before they enter Israel’s airspace. Any missile launched from Iran needs an average of 10 minutes to reach Israel, giving the Israeli air defense systems time to calculate the missile’s destination and alert the intended targets. But this capacity is next to zero when it comes to intercepting missiles launched from batteries that are near Israel and are capable of hitting their Israeli targets within one or two minutes.
It is no longer a secret that Hizbullah has a massive arsenal of missiles and rockets, many of which are highly accurate. The estimated number of such missiles is at least in the tens of thousands. Some say it is up to 100,000, and others believe it is even more than 150,000. Hizbullah knows well that should any conflict break out with Israel, it won’t have the luxury of repeating what happened during Israel’s second war on Lebanon in 2006. In other words, Hizbullah cannot sustain devastating Israeli airstrikes all over Lebanon, which would destroy much of the country’s strategic facilities and infrastructure. Knowing that Hizbullah could not handle a conflict that resembled a boxing match in which both sides exchanged missile punches, both Israel and Hizbullah would opt for the jackpot confrontation of destroying the other side in one or two blows and not waiting for the third.
Israel’s air defenses are not built to face the threat of thousands of missiles falling all over the country in one or two massive strikes. In such a scenario, Israel would decide to protect strategic sites, including military and industry sites. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of the homefront would have to rely on the limited defenses of hiding in safe rooms and bomb shelters until the war’s end.
Israel says the Iron Dome’s current estimated interception rate is close to 90%. I think the rate is a lot less than that. Nevertheless, even 90% accuracy doesn’t provide the defense Israel needs. Out of 10,000 missiles launched, 1,000 that hit their destined targets are a real threat to Israel. The fear that 1,000 missiles can hit small and vital strategic power plants, factories, and state institutions, such as the Knesset in Jerusalem or the Ministry of Defense offices in Tel Aviv or other sites, is undoubtedly an intolerable threat for most Israelis.
This apocalyptic scenario is horrific but not unexpected. Israel’s intransigence on the Palestinian front and its unwavering rejection of the two-state solution based on the June 1967 lines will keep this conflict boiling in a pressure cooker. One day, it will explode, with much higher magnitudes than what has already been witnessed over the past seven and a half decades.
