On Saturday, Israel launched a retaliatory strike against Iran which targeted around 20 military sites across the country, using over 100 combat aircraft. This was an unprecedented operation by Israel against Tehran – in both its breadth and depth. Israel’s aim was to degrade and deter. And in the process, it has reminded the world of the weaknesses of America’s current policy towards Iran.
So far, Iranian media has been downplaying the Israeli strikes. Even as the bombing campaign was underway, pro-regime Telegram channels were posting videos showing placid scenes of Iranian cityscapes. In April, when Israel launched an attack on Esfahan, Iranian state television broadcast the morning traffic with soothing music. This time, state media played classical music to accompany the sunrise over Tehran. Soon after, Iran’s ministry of education announced that schools would open on Saturday as normal.
Israel has done more militarily to weaken the Islamic Republic’s terror network over the last two months than the United States has in over 30 years
Iran’s air defence headquarters have suggested the damage caused was ‘limited’. Iranian outlets insisted that Israel’s raid was ‘weak’ and that the ‘attacks achieved no specific and significant results.’ Iran’s government spokesman later said that the damage was modest. This is setting the stage for Iran to have the option of deescalating. Similarly, Israeli military planners suggested this strike was designed to allow Iran to back down. There were few casualties and the damage was confined to military bases to enable Tehran to deny major losses.
In Iran, there will likely be a familiar debate taking place in the Supreme National Security Council. There will be hardened officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) who may argue Iran needs to respond to maintain its deterrence, especially given the historic nature of the Israeli strikes. This was spelled out by the IRGC’s commander-in-chief Hossein Salami in April when he said that ‘any assault by [Israel] on our people, property, or interests will trigger a reciprocal response originating from within the Islamic Republic of Iran.’
The Islamic Republic has always prided itself on relying on its regional proxies and partners to deter an assault on Iranian soil. But in 2024 Tehran can no longer take that for granted. The regime has been weakened by Israel’s decapitation and degrading of its proxy Hezbollah and partner Hamas. Those IRGC officers like commander-in-chief Hossein Salami, who once boasted that Iran is so invincible that military options against it are off the table, will now have to reassess after Israel’s surgical military strikes on Iranian soil. IRGC hardliners also fear that not retaliating will harm Tehran’s reputation among the Axis of Resistance, which is already reeling from losses by Hezbollah and Hamas.
But there will be other, more pragmatic voices, who will want to focus on the economy and likely argue against a massive retaliation. They will not want to risk a broader conflagration and end up in a war with Israel for which Iran is ill-prepared.
If it does choose to respond, Tehran could aim for a more moderate response to thread the needle between both camps. It could revive its terror campaign abroad, targeting Israeli and Jewish interests yet allowing Iran to deny direct responsibility. Or it could target Israeli maritime vessels; advance Tehran’s nuclear programme; launch another direct but less extensive attack on the Jewish state; or lash out at the United States and its allies to pressure them to restrain Israel. However, Iran’s options are limited. It does not want to invite yet another Israeli strike at a time when Iranian air defences have been weakened from Saturday’s strikes. There is as well the looming danger for Tehran of drawing the US into this conflict, which it wants to avoid because it could destabilise the Islamic Republic.
In this weekend’s strike, Israel cleverly focused its attacks on targeting Iran’s missile and drone programme. These sites are not only used for attacks against Israel but also potentially against Ukraine, as Iran has armed Russia using similar production lines. This allows Israel to keep the United States and especially its European allies on board.
In the end, Israel’s operations are a painful reminder of the failings of US Iran policy. The Israeli blitz took place only days after the 41st anniversary of Hezbollah’s bombing of the US marine barracks in Beirut on October 23, 1983, that killed 241 American service members. Back then, despite having far more strength than Israel, the US government never retaliated against Iran directly, even after the National Security Agency intercepted a message from Tehran weeks before the attack instructing its ambassador in Syria to ‘take spectacular action against the American marines.’ The inconsistent, indirect, and underwhelming reactions to every instance of Iranian aggression since then has made an impression on the Iranian leadership. It has emboldened Iran over the decades. Israel has done more militarily to weaken the Islamic Republic’s terror network over the last two months than the United States has in over 30 years. The Biden administration and its successor can learn some lessons from Israel’s courageous strike on Saturday.