Military experts say Israel’s overnight strikes on Iran represent a calculated and restrained response designed to demonstrate Israeli military capabilities while avoiding major escalation in an increasingly volatile Middle East.
The precision strikes, which targeted missile manufacturing facilities and air defense systems across Iran, mark the first major foreign attack on Iranian soil since the Iran-Iraq war, but were deliberately limited in scope, analysts say.
A general view of Tehran after several explosions were heard, in Tehran, Iran, October 26, 2024. (Reuters)
Strategic messaging
“We know very little at the moment. This looks more extensive than April but is still a restrained response aimed at emphasizing Israel’s conventional military superiority and removing threats in the form of missile production facilities, while not appearing escalatory,” Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), told Al Arabiya English.
The strikes on Tehran served to demonstrate Israel’s ability to penetrate Iranian airspace and defeat air defenses while avoiding civilian areas, drawing a sharp contrast with Iran’s recent missile barrage, Savill said.
“Striking Tehran makes public the Israeli ability to hit the capital and defeat Iranian air defenses,” he said, noting that the operation appeared “far more precise than the equivalent Iranian attack.”
Degrading capabilities
Military analysts suggest the strikes may have targeted Iran’s defensive and offensive capabilities.
“It’s possible that subsequent analysis will show that Iranian air defenses have been degraded, along with missile launch facilities, maybe drone production,” Savill said, adding these strikes were “intended to show the Iranians they are vulnerable to further strikes if they attempt retaliation.”
While Iranian media has downplayed the impact, the regime faces difficult choices in how to respond to what represents the largest conventional attack on its territory in decades, said Savill.
Regional implications
The strikes come amid heightened regional tensions following Iran’s October 1 missile attack on Israel and ongoing conflicts involving Iranian proxies, including Hezbollah and the Houthis.
“Iran is still caught in a dilemma about how to respond to the stripping away of its deterrent in the form of its regional partners,” Savill noted, warning that attacks by proxy groups could still trigger responses if they cause significant casualties.
“We still don’t know the extent to which more aggressive elements in the Iranian system might be advising the Supreme Leader, and media reporting and government briefings in Europe and the Middle East continue to highlight Iranian covert influence and assassination planning or operations.”
Western intelligence continues to monitor Iranian covert activities, with European and Middle Eastern government sources highlighting ongoing concerns about Iranian influence operations and potential assassination plots, said Savill.
While the immediate military exchange may be contained, analysts say fundamental tensions remain unresolved.
Key issues include “the progress of Iran’s nuclear program, the scale of the threat to Israel, other proxy activity, and the status of Israeli hostages,” according to Savill, adding: “An initial judgment might be that this looks like putting a cap on this bout between Israel and Iran, but the underlying points of friction remain.”
The Biden administration’s stance suggests a desire to prevent further escalation while maintaining support for Israel’s right to self-defense. US officials confirmed they received advance notice of the strikes but were not involved in their execution.
International response
World leaders have called for restraint following the strikes. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer acknowledged Israel’s right to self-defense while urging Iran not to respond. The US has explicitly called on Iran to “cease its attacks on Israel so that this cycle of fighting can end.” Qatar and Saudi Arabia have issued respective statements condemning the attacks, with the Kingdom urging for “maximum restraint” to prevent further escalation.
As regional powers assess their next moves, the international community remains focused on preventing wider escalation in a region already dealing with multiple ongoing conflicts.
The strikes occur amid complex regional dynamics, particularly following Iran’s October 1 missile barrage involving approximately 200 missiles fired at Israel in retaliation for the killing of Tehran-backed leaders belonging to Hamas and Hezbollah, and an IRGC general.
It marked Iran’s second direct attack on Israel in six months, triggered by Israel’s targeting of Hezbollah’s leadership in Lebanon.
Israel had vowed revenge against Tehran for the October 1 missile attack, with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant previously saying Israel’s retaliation would be “deadly, precise and surprising.”
Thomas Juneau, an assistant professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, who focuses mostly on the Middle East, particularly Iran, said Israel only striking military sites implies “a limited attack, not on nuclear or energy sites, so a signal to Iran to de-escalate. Yet it seems to be an extensive attack, making it more difficult for Iran not to retaliate.”
However, he said “even if the situation de-escalates now, a big if, we would not return to the same status quo. This was the biggest direct Israeli attack on Iran ever. With every time a new cycle of tit-for-tat, new precedents are set, potentially raising the baseline of violence for the next rounds.”
Possible retaliation
A general view of Tehran after several explosions were heard, in Tehran, Iran, October 26, 2024. (Reuters)
Professor Yossi Mekelberg, senior consulting fellow for the MENA Program at the Chatham House think tank, told Al Arabiya English he believes Iran would like to deescalate tensions and said while there has been a “downplaying” of Saturday’s strikes, they were “serious.”
“Everything can be worse – it depends on what you expect…such as the targeting of oil or gas or the killing of leaders. But it is still serious. When a country has the ability thousands of miles away from home to attack air systems, and send missiles … this is serious.”
“I agree to a point it is not the attack it could have been,” he added, agreeing it could be seen as “restrained.”
Prof. Mekelberg said the fact the attack avoided civilian areas or key energy infrastructure “leaves open the possibility for diplomatic efforts.”
“I think right now the signs from Iran is that it wants to deescalate – and it wants to bring an end to this. By not admitting (the scale of the attack), gives Iran the room not to retaliate.”
He said Israel has clearly managed to felex its muscles in the past year by “eliminated Hamas leadership and almost all of Hezbollah leadership,” adding, “the axis of resistance suffered not only military setbacks but also humiliation.”
“From an Iranian point of view, if they go forward (with retaliation) (they should ask) will it look worse for us? Israel is managing to inflict quite a bit of harm on Iran and its proxies. My sense Iran would like to deescalate (tensions).”
Dr Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East North Africa Programme for Chatham House, told Al Arabiya English that he believed that the attacks were not a surprise to Tehran.
“Israel has made it clear through alerts and further warnings against escalation. This is certainly the largest strike on Iran proper for decades and has showcased Iran’s vulnerabilities, but the three- and half-week lag that saw diplomatic outreach and coordination between the US and Israel has led to a targeted and telegraphed attack on military targets.”
“This gives space for Iran to play down the impact and lower the temperature to avoid war. The US election and Iran’s own military constraints prevent Tehran from further escalation for now.”
Meanwhile, Israel has been fighting Hamas in the Gaza Strip since the Iran-backed Palestinian armed group’s October 7, 2023, attack, which resulted in the deaths of 1,206 people in Israel, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of Israeli official figures.
The Lebanon-based Hezbollah group, also backed by Tehran, has fired missiles at Israel in solidarity with Hamas since the Hamas attack.
Diplomatic considerations
The US position has been carefully calibrated, with President Biden explicitly warning Israel against striking Iran’s nuclear sites and advising against targeting oil infrastructure.
“We understand that Israel is conducting targeted strikes against military targets in Iran as an exercise of self-defense,” said White House National Security Council spokesperson Sean Savett on Saturday, confirming US awareness but non-involvement in the operation.
Later on Saturday, a senior Biden administration official confirmed to reporters in a call that the US was aware of the specific targets involved, and that President Biden has urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to ensure the response remains targeted, proportional, and with minimal risk to civilians.
The US stated its readiness to support Israel should Iran retaliate, but said it believed this strike should mark the end of direct military exchanges between Iran and Israel.
To bolster Israel’s security, the US worked to enhance Israeli air defenses leading up to the attack.
Additionally, the administration confirmed that ceasefire outlines are now in place for Lebanon and Gaza, with diplomatic efforts expected to continue in the coming days.
The Biden administration’s stance reflects broader diplomatic efforts to contain regional escalation. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week emphasized the importance of Israel’s response not leading to greater escalation.
Military capabilities
The Israeli operation demonstrated significant military capabilities, particularly in penetrating Iranian airspace and conducting precision strikes.
The military operation’s precision and scope suggest careful planning to achieve specific strategic objectives while minimizing escalation risks. As noted by RUSI’s Savill, the strikes appeared “far more precise than the equivalent Iranian attack.”
Iranian media’s initial response has been notably measured, with state outlets downplaying the attacks’ impact. The Fars news agency reported strikes on military bases in western and southwestern Tehran, while emphasizing normalcy in daily activities.
The semi-linked Tasnim news agency reported that IRGC bases sustained no damage, though these claims remain unverified.
Iranian authorities continue to maintain their warning that any further Israeli actions will face stronger retaliation.
@Al Arabiya News
