Israel restored deterrence against Iran…for now
OpinionGuest columnist

Israel restored deterrence against Iran…for now

In this strike, the Israel Defense Forces demonstrated an operational capacity normally reserved for major powers.

Tehran, Iran. (Photo by daniyal62, courtesy of flickr.com)
Tehran, Iran. (Photo by daniyal62, courtesy of flickr.com)

Nearly a month after Iran’s Oct. 1 missile attack, Israel responded early Saturday morning with an unprecedented, wide, and publicized Israeli strike on Iran. The attack brought Tehran into the line of fire for the first time since the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. A year after the Simchat Torah catastrophe, Israel has achieved yet another significant success, strengthening its deterrence against Iran and across the region. However, it is essential to remember that the military achievements across all arenas have not yet been translated by the political echelon into arrangements that would improve Israel’s long-term strategic position. It is equally crucial to temper our perspective on these accomplishments when considering a formidable nation like Iran, which has extensive missile capabilities, strategic patience and a willingness to sacrifice.

In this strike, the Israel Defense Forces demonstrated an operational capacity normally reserved for major powers, involving complex planning, high-quality intelligence and use of large-scale munitions over distances of 1,400-1,600 kilometers, crossing intermediary countries’ airspaces with in-air refueling. Israeli Air Force jets and the munitions they carried managed to penetrate Iran’s defense systems, hit their targets precisely, and return safely, after successfully striking approximately 20 high-value military and security targets across Iran.

Comparing the Iranian attack to the Israeli response underscores the asymmetry between the two sides, due to Israel’s advanced capabilities and its technological and military superiority, partly provided by U.S. resources and partly developed by Israel’s defense industries. Iran attacked with masses of missiles and drones to overwhelm defense systems, terrorize and inflict damage. Many of its missiles failed during launch or flight, most were intercepted by Israel and the U.S.’ advanced defense systems, while others missed their targets and hit civilian areas. By contrast, Israel executed targeted, precise strikes, where each munition hit its intended target, benefiting from a significant advantage in both defensive and civil preparedness. Still, due to the size difference between the countries, Iran manages to send a large portion of Israel’s population into shelters, while on its vast territory this is not the case, partly due to the lack of an organized warning system.

Despite the powerful blow dealt to Iran, Israel’s response logic appears intended to “close” the current round while signaling a clear future threat. Israel was compelled to respond to the Iranian attacks in April and October but refrained from targeting nuclear or energy sites, and emphasized that only military targets — such as missile and UAV launch and production bases — were struck. The destruction of these assets also serves Western interests, as Iran supplies them to Russia in the Ukraine war. In addition, Israel targeted air defense sites to clear a future operational path and highlight Iran’s vulnerability as a warning against continued escalation.

The choice of targets and the logic behind the strike reflect the close dialogue with Washington and U.S. pressure to limit the strike and avoid broader escalation ahead of the U.S. elections. But Israel, too, has a vested interest in avoiding the opening of another attrition front. Therefore, the ultimate purpose of this strike was to restore deterrence against Iran and remove it as a front of direct confrontation, allowing the IDF to focus on consolidating its achievements in the north and increasing pressure on Hamas in the south.

Israel did not seek U.S. approval for the strike but closely considered Washington’s stance, aligning expectations and plans. The impact will unfold in the long term through joint assessments concerning Iran, and in the immediate term, with the deployment of THAAD batteries to reinforce Israel’s defense against potential Iranian retaliation, alongside American messages to Iran urging restraint.

Coordination with the U.S. administration is crucial, signaling to Iran that continued conflict with Israel could result in even greater damage and might lead to expanded U.S. involvement, especially as political constraints are expected to ease after the Nov. 5 elections. Still, in its public statement following the strike, the U.S. linked itself to the strike solely in a defensive context, supporting Israel’s right to self-defense while distancing itself from direct involvement. Meanwhile, additional reinforcements for Central Command were reported, with fighter jets transferred from Germany.

Regionally, both Israel and the U.S. had previously worried that an overt strike on Iran could trigger responses from Hezbollah in Lebanon and other proxies from Yemen, Iraq and Syria. Today, it is clear that Hezbollah has lost its ability to deter Israel from striking Iran — after Tehran has invested tens of billions in it over recent decades —evidence of the erosion of Iran’s proxy strategy, especially given the significant blows Israel has dealt Hezbollah over the past year.

Before Israel’s strike, the Iranians threatened a rapid response in order to “have the last word,” risking additional Israeli retaliation. However, it appears the Iranian regime has chosen to reassess the strike’s results and determine its response accordingly. Iran is downplaying Israel’s strike as “weak,” attempting to downplay its severity with false claims that most of the munitions were intercepted and caused no significant damage. Thus, four main scenarios can be outlined for Iran’s response:

1. Iran closes the current exchange with no response or a symbolic one, allowing the incident to end.

2. Iran changes its approach and opts for an attritional strategy, launching small numbers of missiles over a prolonged period. Although challenging for Israel, it can deter Iran from this path and potentially leverage it to hit targets that it left intact.

3. Iran escalates, expanding its attack to Israeli targets or other regional states perceived to support the Israeli strike.

4. Iran concludes its deterrence against Israel and the U.S. using proxies and missiles has been severely compromised, and advances its pursuit of nuclear weapons — the most concerning scenario for Israel.

Even if the first scenario is most likely, Israel must prepare for the worse options, for potential Iranian retaliation including a preventive response with stronger defense augmented by the U.S. THAAD battery. In such a case, it would be prudent to consider the next steps alongside the U.S. immediately following the elections, this time preparing to target higher-value objectives, such as infrastructure, regime assets, or possibly nuclear targets. Israel must reach an understanding with the U.S., which shares its goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and formulate a strategic and operational plan in case of an Iranian nuclear breakout.

Israel must also avoid a protracted war of attrition with Iran and its proxies, leveraging the closure of the Iranian exchange of strikes to prevent further escalation in the multi-front conflict — a situation that Israel’s political leadership also contributes to. It is time to translate the military successes achieved over recent months into sustainable strategic and political gains, especially in Gaza and Lebanon, with a focus on securing the quick return of the hostages. Only political actions and diplomatic arrangements that complement the military efforts will enable the preservation of the military achievements and prevent them from being eroded in an endless war of attrition. PJC

Major General (ret.) Amos Yadlin, former head of the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate, is the president of MIND Israel.

read more:
comments