Israeli leaders on Tuesday were debating the best response to Iran's unprecedented weekend airstrikes, officials said, weighing a range of options tailored to achieving the desired results. different strategic consequences: prevent a similar attack in the future, appease their American allies, and avoid all-out war.
Iran's attack on Israel, a massive attack that included hundreds of ballistic missiles and exploding drones, changed the unwritten rules of the long-running shadow war between the two countries. competitor. During that conflict, major air strikes from one country's territory directly against the other were avoided.
Israeli officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss Iran said that as a result of that change in precedent, the calculus Israel uses to decide its next move has also changed.
“We cannot stand idly by in the face of this type of aggression,” Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, a spokesman for the Israeli military, said Tuesday. Iran will “not escape this aggression,” he added.
As Israel's war cabinet meets to consider a military response, other countries are applying diplomatic pressure to both Israel and Iran in hopes of de-escalating the conflict.
Almost all of the missiles and drones fired in Iran's attack early Sunday morning were intercepted by Israel and its allies, including the United States and Britain.
Iran said the attack was a response to an Israeli airstrike earlier this month in which several armed forces commanders were killed in an attack in Syria. That thing attack on the Iranian embassy building in Damascus different from previous targeted assassinations targeting individuals in the shadow war.
That attack destroyed a building belonging to the Iranian embassy complex, a type of facility generally considered out of bounds attack. Israeli officials said the building was for diplomatic purposes only and was used as an Iranian military and intelligence base, making it a legitimate target.
Iran, which signaled it viewed the attack as a violation of the rules of Israel's shadow war, felt compelled to retaliate forcefully, analysts said. said, to establish deterrence and maintain credibility with its proxies and hard-line supporters.
Israel does not want Iran to conclude that it can now attack Israeli territory in response to an Israeli attack on Iranian interests in a third country, several officials said, summarizing the internal debate of Israel. But, they added, Israel also does not want and cannot accept a major conflict with Iran while still fighting in Gaza and fighting Iranian proxies along the border.
Members of Israel's small but tough war cabinet are considering options big enough to send a clear message to Iran that such attacks will not go unanswered, officials said. but not so large as to cause a major escalation.
Officials described the following options and their drawbacks, from which Israeli leaders are choosing to respond:
-
Conduct a forceful attack on an Iranian target, such as an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps base, in a non-Iranian country such as Syria. (The drawback is that it lacks symmetry in responding to a direct attack on Israel with a direct attack on Iran.)
-
Attacking a symbolic target inside Iran. (Such a move would likely require US consultation and risk angering Americans who have advised against such an attack.)
-
Conduct a cyber attack on Iran's infrastructure. (Doing so could prematurely expose Israel's cyber capabilities and would not be a proportionate response to a major air strike.)
-
Accelerated minor attacks inside Iran, including targeted assassinations by Mossad. (Israel has not claimed responsibility for such attacks, so they do not match the public nature of Iran's attack.)
Israel's other options include doing nothing – a measure aimed at leveraging the regional and international coalition that has come together to help roll back Iran's attack into something more solid and lasting – or Other officials said they took a more diplomatic approach, including a U.N. Security Council boycott of Iran.
At the time of the Iranian attack, at least two cabinet members argued that Israel should respond immediately, two Israeli officials said, arguing that a quick response in self-defense would gives clear legitimacy to such a counterattack.
However, after three days of meetings, the cabinet has still not decided on a response. On Tuesday, the five-member cabinet met with security officials for two hours of consultations, according to an official, and they are expected to reconvene on Wednesday.
The war cabinet's deliberations were kept secret and divided by the old rivalries and distrust. Its members share a history of fierce competition as well as personal and political betrayals, which can sometimes color leaked details.
According to two officials, those who proposed immediate retaliation over the weekend were Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, two former military commanders and current moderate political allies who overcame parliamentary limits to join the government for the benefit of national unity after October 11. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel.
But for reasons that remain unclear, no strikes took place on Sunday following the Iranian attack.
American officials have tried publicly and privately to convince Israel that it does not need to retaliate for the Iranian attack. They argued that Netanyahu could “win” thanks to a successful defense against Iran's onslaught, which caused minimal damage and injured only one person, a young Bedouin girl.
However, US officials also said they understand that convincing Israel not to retaliate may be impossible. US officials said they understood Israeli officials believed they must respond to a direct attack from Iran on Israel in a way that the world could see. A covert Israeli attack on Iran would likely not be enough to satisfy Netanyahu's coalition partners or the current Israeli government, US officials said.
If that counterattack prompts another round of Iranian missiles and drones, American warplanes and naval vessels will once again come to defend their ally against Iran, American officials said. against their main enemy in the Middle East.
The United States also supports diplomatic efforts to pressure and punish Iran, including imposing tougher sanctions on the country in the coming days, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said. said during a press conference in Washington on Tuesday.
Ms. Yellen declined to detail what form the sanctions might take, but suggested that the Biden administration was considering ways to further limit Iran's oil exports. The United States is also seeking to cut off Iran's access to military components it uses to make weapons such as drones, according to a Treasury official, who declined to be named to discuss the matter. drone that the country launched into Israel over the weekend. private discussions.
“Treasury will not hesitate to work with our allies to use our sanctions authority to further continue to disrupt the Iranian regime's malign and destabilizing activities.”
As Israel faces pressure from its allies to prevent a wider conflict with Iran, several countries, including Russia, China and Japan, have also urged Iran to avoid further escalation.
And the European Union is considering expanding economic sanctions on Iran's weapons program to punish the country for its attack on Israel last weekend and try to prevent any escalation. There is no violence across the Middle East, the EU's top diplomat said on Tuesday.
“I am not trying to exaggerate when I say that, in the Middle East, we are at the edge of a very deep abyss,” said Josep Borrell Fontelles, the EU's foreign policy chief. discuss the crisis.
Report contributed by Eric Schmitt, Alan Rappeport, Cassandra Vinograd, Aaron the boxer Christopher F. Schuetze And Lara Jakes.
