For more than a decade, Israel has repeatedly rehearsed bombing and missile campaigns aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear production capabilities, much of which has been based around the city of Isfahan and its nuclear weapons complex. Nuclear-rich Natanz is 75 miles to the north.
That's not what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's war cabinet chose to do early Friday, and in interviews, analysts and nuclear experts said the decision spoke for itself. .
The silence that followed was the same. Israel said almost nothing about the limited strike, which did not appear to cause much damage to Iran. US officials note that Iran's decision to downplay the scale of the explosion in Isfahan – and suggestions by Iranian officials that Israel may not have been responsible – was an apparent effort by the Guard The Islamic Revolution aims to avoid another escalation.
Inside the White House, officials asked the Pentagon, State Department and intelligence agencies to keep quiet about the operation, hoping to placate Iran's efforts to defuse tensions in the region.
But in interviews, officials quickly added that they worry that the relationship between Israel and Iran is now in a very different place than it was just a week ago. The taboo of directly attacking each other's territory is now gone. Should there be another round – a conflict over Iran's nuclear advances, or another Israeli attack on Iranian military officers – both sides may feel more comfortable attacking attack directly on the other side.
Netanyahu is under competitive pressure: President Biden is urging him to “win” after a largely ineffective air attack launched by Iran last week, while hardliners snakes in Israel are urging him to strike forcefully to reestablish deterrence afterward. the first direct attempt to attack Israel from Iranian territory in 45 years since the Iranian revolution.
American officials said they quickly realized they could not talk to Netanyahu about some obvious response.
So the White House and the Pentagon urged what one senior US official called a “signal, not an attack” with minimal potential for casualties. But while this is a minimalist option, its long-term implications for the Revolutionary Guard and the teams of scientists working on Iran's nuclear program are likely to be significant. They could accelerate the movement to place more nuclear facilities deep underground or expand them to make it even more difficult for nuclear inspectors to understand where Iran is doing its most sensitive work.
And American officials fear that could accelerate a confrontation over the nuclear program itself, which has become increasingly confusing to inspectors over the past two years.
The signal sent by the decision to attack a conventional military target in Isfahan was clear: Israel had demonstrated that it could penetrate Isfahan's air defenses, many of which were located around Isfahan locations. important sites such as the Isfahan uranium conversion facility.
That 25-year-old facility, which is relatively vulnerable to attack, is Iran's main production line for converting large stocks of natural uranium into a gas – called UF6 – that can be fed into centrifuges to produce nuclear fuel nuclear power, to produce electricity or nuclear weapons.
Israeli warplanes also fired missiles at Iran during the attack, suggesting more firepower than initial reports had indicated.
It is unclear what type of missiles were used, where they were fired from, whether any were intercepted by Iran's defense systems, or where they landed. But just as drones launched from under Iran's nose send a message about Israel's capabilities, so do guided missiles from Israeli warplanes.
A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence assessments, said Friday that Israel informed the United States through multiple channels shortly before the attack. But unlike the warning Israel gave to US authorities shortly before its warplanes attacked the Iranian embassy complex in Damascus on April 1, the official said the latest attack This is not surprising given all the warnings Israel has issued this week.
“While there has been no official statement claiming responsibility for the overnight attack on the military base in Isfahan, the message is clear: Iran's attempt to unilaterally move war targets in the region sector will not be met with silence and inaction,” he said. Dana Stroul, the Pentagon's former top Middle East policy official, now works at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “A state-level attack involving drones and missiles would be met with a response.”
Ms Stroul added: “However, last night's strike was very precise and limited. “The message is that Iran's air defense system is completely penetrable and its forces cannot protect its military bases from outside attack. But the damage is limited. If Iran's leaders decide that further escalation is not worth the risk of a much more costly and deadly attack on their soil, this cycle of escalation could end .”
Long-term effects are more difficult to predict. Vali Nasr, an Iran expert and former dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, noted recently that Iran may now be determined to move its weapons “closer to Israel” and possibly faces new domestic pressure to openly seek a nuclear program. deterrence.
Iran has banned some, but not all, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world's nuclear watchdog. It enriched uranium to 60% purity, making it just days or weeks before it reached bomb-grade quality. And at the height of the conflict with Israel last weekend, several senior commanders spoke publicly about Iran reconsidering its official position that it would never seek weapons. .
Julian E. Barnes Report contributions.
