After Vowing Retaliation, Israel Weighs Its Options Against Iran
Tensions rise as Israel plans retaliation for Iranian missile strikes. Netanyahu faces US pressure, weighing action against Iran’s nuclear sites, which could escalate into a larger regional conflict
Tensions are running high in anticipation of an Israeli attack on Iran, part of a tit-for-tat direct conflict between the two countries, which could quickly escalate into a widespread escalation.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeated his promise to exact a price on Iran, speaking to the public on Saturday.
“Iran has launched hundreds of missiles at our territory and cities twice already in some of history’s greatest ballistic missile attacks,” Netanyahu said. “No country in the world would accept such an attack…Israel has the duty and the right to defend itself and respond to such attacks, and it will.”
Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, has long singled out Iran as his country’s most significant threat. After years of a shadow war between the countries, the confrontation has become direct.
His statement came days after Iran launched at least 180 ballistic missiles at Israel. While Iran has claimed the missiles hit their targets, Israeli authorities reported no casualties. The spokesman for the Israeli army said Saturday that two air force bases were struck, with “no damage to planes or operational systems.”
Israel now faces a major dilemma as its most senior defense officials and political leadership deliberate the response to the attack.
According to Dr. Yoel Guzansky, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), Israel has several options, with its most desired target being sites related to the Iranian nuclear program.
However, given the complex circumstances, there is a gap between what Israel desires and what it can actually carry out.
If Israel could do whatever it wants, then this would be the first option. But this comes with technological, operational, and political constraints. The US is not interested in such an attack because it understands that this could develop into a larger war. The US wants to see an Israeli response that will look powerful but will not ignite the region and still put an end to the story.
“If Israel could do whatever it wants, then this would be the first option,” Guzansky told The Media Line. “But this comes with technological, operational, and political constraints. The US is not interested in such an attack because it understands that this could develop into a larger war. The US wants to see an Israeli response that will look powerful but will not ignite the region and still put an end to the story.”
Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla, commander of US Central Command, is due to arrive in Israel over the weekend for what will likely be a series of meetings to coordinate or, at the very least, inform the American general about Israel’s intentions.
Israel is under American pressure in a currently highly explosive region with serious concern that the Gulf States will be harmed as a result of such a confrontation. Israel does want to be the one to ignite the region and risk harming countries it has friendly relations with.
“Israel is under American pressure in a currently highly explosive region with serious concern that the Gulf States will be harmed as a result of such a confrontation,” Guzansky added. “Israel does want to be the one to ignite the region and risk harming countries it has friendly relations with.”
Media reports suggested Iranian officials had threatened countries such as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that if Israel attacked, their oil facilities would be the target of Iranian retaliation.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
The Israeli military has already been deeply entrenched in a multi-front war for a year now. With ground troops in Gaza and Lebanon, its air force is also preoccupied with backing those forces in addition to thwarting attacks from Yemen and Iraq. Such an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program would likely be the opening act in an even larger, more intense multi-front war that could drag in world powers such as China and Russia in addition to the US.
Iran is believed to be a few steps away from the ability to produce a nuclear weapon, something perceived by Israel as an existential threat that would encourage not only Iran but also other enemies and proxy organizations closer to Israel’s borders.
An Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities is not only a matter of will. The complexities of such a strike are numerous and perhaps insurmountable, making it not necessarily realistic.
Destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities is likely an impossible task. They are carved deep under rocky mountains. In some cases, they cannot even be targeted, and in some cases, perhaps only some damage can be inflicted.
“Destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities is likely an impossible task,” Maj. (ret.) Alex Grinberg, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and an expert on Iran at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, told The Media Line. “They are carved deep under rocky mountains. In some cases, they cannot even be targeted, and in some cases, perhaps only some damage can be inflicted.”
Iranian nuclear facilities are scattered across the country, underground, casting doubts about Israel’s ability to perform the complex airstrikes to take them out, more than 1,000 miles away from Israeli Air Force bases. Israel’s recent strikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen have provided a new source of confidence for its ability to strike afar, but that is where the similarity with Iran ends.
Iran is just as far as Yemen, but this is not the Houthis that can be reached directly and pose little threat to Israeli planes. There are countries on the way to Iran which pose a threat and others whom Israel does not want to embarrass in addition to American forces. Iran also has extensive anti-aircraft capabilities. It is not simple.
“Iran is just as far as Yemen, but this is not the Houthis that can be reached directly and pose little threat to Israeli planes,” said Guzansky. “There are countries on the way to Iran which pose a threat and others whom Israel does not want to embarrass in addition to American forces. Iran also has extensive anti-aircraft capabilities. It is not simple.”
In April, Iran attacked Israel for the first time directly. Firing more than 300 missiles and suicide drones at the country, it was a sudden departure from its doctrine of indirectly attacking Israel through its many proxies. Iran’s assault was in retaliation for an earlier Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate in Syria.
In response, Israel launched a series of missile strikes on Iranian military sites, including one near Isfahan, home to Iran’s main nuclear research facility, and other strategic military strikes. Many in Israel chastised the attack, including a senior minister who said it was “dardale” or limp in Yiddish. But it did bear significance.
The attacks on Isfahan and in Yemen demonstrate the Israeli air force can reach anywhere. By blinding Iran’s radars, an ability that has been in development for long, Israel proved it could do it.
“The attacks on Isfahan and in Yemen demonstrate the Israeli air force can reach anywhere,” said Grinberg. “By blinding Iran’s radars, an ability that has been in development for long, Israel proved it could do it.”
For years, Israel has been believed to be behind attacks against Iran and its nuclear program, with hundreds of airstrikes against Iranian targets in the Middle East, in addition to cyberattacks against major infrastructure and the assassination of leading Iranian scientists.
Israel’s other options aside from nuclear sites could be Iran’s oil production facilities, government symbols, or military targets.
If it is possible to strike at the bottleneck of Iranian abilities, such as its missile depots, this will be very meaningful. This could really harm Iran and hamper its capability to manufacture missiles. Such a visible attack, which will likely produce a lot of fire and craters, is important for Israel’s deterrence in the region and in the world while also harming Iran’s ability.
“If it is possible to strike at the bottleneck of Iranian abilities, such as its missile depots, this will be very meaningful,” said Guzansky. “This could really harm Iran and hamper its capability to manufacture missiles. Such a visible attack, which will likely produce a lot of fire and craters, is important for Israel’s deterrence in the region and in the world while also harming Iran’s ability.”
According to Grinberg, the Israeli air force faces a much more inferior adversary in its Iranian enemy.
Iran has no conventional air force and is very weak when it comes to a conventional military, and while it does have anti-aircraft missiles, they can be neutralized.
“Iran has no conventional air force and is very weak when it comes to a conventional military, and while it does have anti-aircraft missiles, they can be neutralized,” he said.
Decades of international sanctions on the Islamic Republic are believed to have significantly set back the abilities of the Iranian military, including its air force. While it outnumbers Israel in many parameters, mainly due to its size, its military is considered inferior.
Should Israel heed American warnings not to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, non-nuclear military targets could be a more realistic option. However, the opposition of the American administration led by President Joe Biden to such a strike will only delay what will likely be a head-on, large-scale confrontation between the arch-rivals in the future, especially as Iran takes giant strides toward possession of military-grade nuclear weapons.
This gives Iran immunity, projects American weakness, and is very problematic because it essentially allows Iran to strike at America’s greatest ally in the region. By not wanting a regional war and taking steps to avoid Iranian lashing out, the US is inviting further Iranian aggression. This is a paradox – by projecting it doesn’t want a regional war, it is projecting weakness, signaling to Iran that it is allowed to operate against Israel within certain limits.
“This gives Iran immunity, projects American weakness, and is very problematic because it essentially allows Iran to strike at America’s greatest ally in the region,” said Guzansky. “By not wanting a regional war and taking steps to avoid Iranian lashing out, the US is inviting further Iranian aggression. This is a paradox – by projecting it doesn’t want a regional war, it is projecting weakness, signaling to Iran that it is allowed to operate against Israel within certain limits.”
Israel could choose to target symbols of the Iranian regime, such as the headquarters of the Supreme National Security Council and the Revolutionary Guard, or target senior officials. Attacking oil manufacturing sites could plunge Iran into further economic despair that could be a lethal blow to a regime already struggling with internal public opinion.
“These are very important to such an ideological regime such as the Iranian one, even if no one is killed in the attack – something with symbolic value is important to target to demonstrate that the regime is not so intimidating,” said Grinberg. “Iran is filled with potential targets that can be hit without killing or injuring uninvolved civilians.”
The decisions made by both sides in the coming days will determine the future of the conflict—will it remain a gradually escalating tit-for-tat dynamic, or might it erupt into a broader escalation that neither side appears eager to engage in at this point in time?
Last week, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian threatened Israel, speaking at an event in Qatar.
“Any type of military attack, terrorist act, or crossing our red lines will be met with a decisive response by our armed forces,” he said.
