The decision to strike back at Iran and its “satellites” has been taken by Netanyahu based on the options presented to successive war councils by the IDF. Nevertheless, the timing as well as the extent of the strike are under consideration, while the international diplomatic scene exerts suffocating pressure on the Israeli prime minister not to take actions that will lead to extremely dangerous situations in Middle East.
Because of the complex preparations necessary for a perfectly coordinated strike that should achieve its goal – whatever the decision – can change suddenly, sources told the Jerusalem Post, but the seriousness of the Israeli leadership’s determination to a blow is strong, which is evidenced by the very evolution of the decision taken. At the same time, the pressures on Netanyahu from the military and political leadership are suffocating as they press for a large-scale and powerful strike against Tehran.
Nevertheless, all developments indicate that Israel is still seeking to limit the offensive to avoid a slide into a regional war.
Israeli Army (IDF) Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi hinted that the timing of the attack would not be immediate during a visit to the 136th Battalion Arrow air defense unit, stating that there is complete confidence in the armed forces’ readiness. their.
Another strategic “card” that Israel may be playing is the timing of the response it presents, which aims to reduce the guard of the opposing camp, so that the strike has elements of surprise. In such a case the impending attack could be postponed even longer. But at least a simple reading of the relevant signals suggests that a major attack is not imminent in the coming days
The supposed options available to Israel are among other things a blow to Iranian nuclear facilities with drones or even F-35s. The ballistic missile facilities which directly participated in the attack by Iran are also a target. More specific options have simultaneously fallen on the “table” of the war councils and concern the extermination of high-ranking officials inside and outside the country.
At the same time, some “signals” indicated that the Israeli Air Force is expected to engage an unusually important target. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said on Tuesday: “The Iranians failed in their attack and will not deter Israel. The skies of the Middle East are wide open for the Israeli air force. The enemy will be struck wherever he is.”
The 4 options
In their analysis the New York Timesthey talk about various options that Israel’s military leadership is considering, which will send the necessary clear message to Iran, but without provoking an open war, which the US and its allies do not want at all.
The four options and their disadvantages according to the New York Times
- An offensive strike on an Iranian target, such as a Revolutionary Guards base, but outside of Iran, in a country such as Syria. The downside is that such an option is disproportionate to a direct attack by Iran on Israeli soil
- A strike on a symbolic target on Iranian soil but such a move would require consultation with the US and risk angering Washington, which has expressed its opposition to such a strike
- A cyber attack on Iranian infrastructure. Such a move, however, would prematurely expose Israel’s capabilities in this type of warfare and would not be a similar response to an airstrike like Iran’s.
- Accelerating small-scale attacks on Iranian soil, including targeted assassinations to be carried out by the Mossad. For such attacks, however, Israel does not claim responsibility and so they fall short of public recognition within a strike like that of Iran
#Israel #weighs #extent #retaliation #options #quiver
