by Yaakov Lappin
Israel appears to be playing a longer game, seeking to degrade Iran’s immediate military threat while leaving room for future strikes.
 |
IAF F-35 stealth fighter aircraft fly in Israeli airspace. Credit: IDF Spokesperson's Unit. |
Israel’s airstrikes on military targets in Iran overnight Friday damaged the Islamic Regime’s missile program and air defenses, while demonstrating the Israeli Air Force’s advanced long-range capabilities.
However, Iran’s nuclear program was left unscathed, suggesting that Israel’s government factored in U.S. pressure to keep the attack limited in nature. The question going forward is whether the damage to Iran’s missile and air defense infrastructure have paved the way for future strikes.
Iranian state media has reported that targets were hit in three main regions: Tehran, Khuzestan (in southwest Iran) and Ilam (western Iran).
The attack, which Israel named “Operation Days of Repentance,” saw tens of IAF jets, accompanied by refuelers, travel some 1,600 kilometers from Israeli territory. The IAF achieved near uncontested aerial supremacy in Iranian skies.
While Iranian state media is playing down the impact, the attack at the very least demonstrated Israel’s ability to strike deep in Iranian territory and conduct complex, multi-wave operations without sustaining losses.
Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Hezi Halevi commanded the operation from IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv, alongside IAF Commander Maj. Gen. Tomer Bar.
According to the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit, the mission was successful, with all aircraft returning safely.
Following the strikes, Reuters cited a senior Biden administration official as saying that while Washington “was prepared to respond to any Iranian retaliation, President Joe Biden anticipated that Iran would not escalate the situation.”
This aligns with a broader pattern of U.S. pressure on Israel to avoid direct attacks against Iran’s nuclear program, especially with U.S. elections just days away and amid ongoing diplomatic efforts by the U.S. aimed to avoid direct American involvement in a war against Iran.
As such, the attack was not only a military maneuver by Israel, but also a diplomatic one. By avoiding a direct confrontation over the nuclear issue, the Iranian regime was given the opportunity to de-escalate.
The immediate tactical question following the operation is whether Israel’s strikes have sufficiently degraded Iran’s missile and air defense capabilities to influence future engagements.
If Iran’s air defense network was significantly weakened, Israel may have an advantage in any potential follow-up operation. The fact that the operation spanned several hours, with multiple waves of attacks, suggests a sustained and methodical effort to diminish Iran’s military response capabilities.
The damage to Iran’s missile production sites is currently unknown, but might also slow down Tehran’s efforts to replenish and upgrade its ballistic missile arsenal, degrading a key component of Iran’s military strategy.
The key strategic question now is whether Israel anticipates a “Stage B.” While the recent strikes achieved tactical gains, Israel’s decision not to engage Iran’s nuclear facilities suggests that a future attack might hinge on Iran’s response or any perceived shift by Iran to break out to a nuclear bomb.
If the recent strike has indeed undermined Iran’s air defenses and missile capabilities, Israel might find a second wave—targeting more sensitive or strategically crucial sites—logistically simpler.
Yet Iran’s nuclear advancements continue. According to Sima Shine, director of the Iran and the Shi’ite Axis Research Program at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, within two to three weeks, Iran can enrich enough uranium for three nuclear devices. The parallel effort of creating a nuclear warhead, she told JNS this month, would take more time, though she noted Iran could also decide to just create a bomb without a missile warhead. “We’re talking about roughly six months to a year and a half,” she said. “What is needed is a political decision” on Tehran’s part.
In light of these developments, the focus on missile production and air defenses suggests Israel is playing a longer game, seeking to degrade Iran’s immediate military threat while leaving room for future strikes.
“Operation Days of Repentance” thus stands as a calculated maneuver, but one that leaves open critical questions about what comes next, and whether Israel has set the stage for a more decisive confrontation with Iran’s nuclear program.
Yaakov Lappin is an Israel-based military affairs correspondent and analyst. He is
the in-house analyst at the Miryam Institute; a research associate at
the Alma Research and Education Center; and a research associate at the
Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University. He is a
frequent guest commentator on international television news networks,
including Sky News and i24 News. Lappin is the author of Virtual Caliphate: Exposing the Islamist State on the Internet. Follow him at: www.patreon.com/yaakovlappin.
Source: https://www.jns.org/irans-missile-program-set-back-but-nuclear-threat-remains/
No comments:
Post a Comment