Israel considered a more extensive counterstrike on Iran but ultimately decided against it due to pressure from the United States and other allies, as well as the successful defense against an Iranian attack on Israeli soil. While initially planning to bomb multiple military targets in Iran, Israel opted for a limited strike that was intended to show Iran the capability of its military arsenal without causing significant damage or escalating tensions further.
Instead of sending fighter jets into Iranian airspace, Israel chose to launch a small number of missiles from a distance, along with small attack drones, to confuse Iranian air defenses. The attack targeted a strategically important area in central Iran, including an antiaircraft battery, while intentionally avoiding causing excessive damage to prevent a retaliatory response from Iran. By demonstrating its ability to strike Iran without entering its airspace, Israel hoped to prevent further escalation and emphasize its military superiority.
The chain of events leading to the attack began with an Israeli strike on an Iranian embassy complex in Damascus, Syria, which resulted in Iranian threats of a major strike on Israeli soil. Israel responded by preparing defensive and offensive military operations, anticipating an attack involving drones and ballistic missiles. After successfully defending against Iran’s massive assault, which included over 100 ballistic missiles and drones, Israel received encouragement from the U.S. and other allies to avoid further escalation and consider the defense a victory.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s phone call with President Biden played a pivotal role in Israel’s decision not to retaliate immediately, despite initial plans for a strong counterstrike. The Israeli government ultimately chose to carry out a more contained attack that would send a message to Iran without provoking a larger conflict. By refraining from claiming responsibility for the attack and focusing on small drones as the target, Israel and Iran were able to avoid escalating tensions further and potentially defuse the situation.
Foreign allies supported Israel’s decision to conduct a limited attack that allowed Iran to save face and move on without feeling the need to respond in kind. The attack, which was planned for Monday night but delayed due to concerns about Hezbollah escalating hostilities in northern Israel, ultimately took place on Friday morning and was met with a muted response from Iranian officials. By managing the situation carefully and avoiding public humiliation, Israel and its allies aimed to prevent a further escalation of hostilities in the region.
Overall, Israel’s decision to forego a broader counterstrike on Iran in favor of a more limited attack was influenced by diplomatic pressure, successful defense efforts, and strategic considerations. By demonstrating its military capabilities while avoiding escalation, Israel sought to send a message to Iran without provoking a larger conflict. The response from both Israel and Iran, characterized by restraint and avoidance of blame, helped to reduce the risk of further hostilities between the two countries.
