Israel retaliated, but bet on containment

After the Iranian attacks on Israeli territory – which ended in failure, both military and strategic –, expectations regarding Israel’s response remained in the air. That Benjamin Netanyahu’s war cabinet would retaliate was almost a given, all that remained was to know the proportions.

Contrary to what was planned – which, according to the New York Timeswould be a significant bombing of Iranian military bases, even those close to the capital, Tehran – and after diplomatic pressure, mainly from the United States, Israel attacked last Friday so as not to give Iran great pretexts to retaliate, which which would plunge the already unstable Middle East into greater conflict.

On Wednesday, Hezbollah – a Lebanese militia supported by Iran – again launched attacks against northern Israel.

The counter attack

On the 16th, Israel counterattacked and targeted Isfahan as its main target. But more than causing significant damage, the Jewish state’s main objective was to send a message to Ali Khamenei’s regime. Israel’s intelligence and military capabilities were demonstrated, proving capable of wreaking havoc on sensitive Iranian structures.

According to Euronews, the Iranian ayatollah did not even mention this Israeli attack in a meeting with senior dignitaries of the regime, even though he forced Iran to activate its anti-aircraft defenses. Khamenei only addressed the meaning of the attack that Iran carried out against Israel: «The other side’s debates about how many missiles were fired, how many reached the target and how many did not, are of secondary importance. […] The main matter is the emergence of the will of the Iranian nation and the Iranian army in an important international arena»declared the supreme leader, quoted by AP.

The attack was more dissuasive than forceful, since, and as was written in the last edition of Sunrisethe escalation to a regional conflict is not in the interests of those involved or their allies.

The question of deterrence

Israel had already tried to deter Iran with the attack on the consular building of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, but it was not effective. Also the fact that the Iranians operate against Israel only on the basis of proxiesdoes not give Israelis the possibility of evaluating the situation based on previous events, which means there is a significant margin for error.

And, as Henry Kissinger said: “Deterrence requires the combination of power, the willingness to use it and the assessment of these by the potential aggressor. There cannot be a gap in deterrence […] It’s either effective or it’s not. There is no margin for error. Mistakes can be irremediable».

In this case, if the error is truly irremediable – which for now seems unlikely, given Israel’s restrained response –, there could be a conflict of unknown proportions in the region, with Iran already threatening to retaliate with «weapons not used until now».