Analysis: Israel’s strikes on Iran avoided nuclear or oil facilities, targeting military sites instead. But are they a prelude to a more serious assault?
In the early hours of 26 October, following more than three weeks of escalating tensions and rhetorical brinkmanship, Israel executed a series of airstrikes targeting Iranian military installations across the region.
Dubbed ‘Days of Repentance,’ the military operation encompassed three coordinated waves of attacks focusing on key assets associated with Iran’s military presence in Syria and Iraq, as well as its operational capabilities in Tehran itself.
The strikes began with targeted assaults on Iranian air defence systems and radar installations before shifting focus to missile bases and drone production facilities.
Related
Is a regional war between Israel and Iran inevitable?
Analysis
Giorgio Cafiero
Notably, the attacks included strikes on the Imam Ali International Airport in Tehran and a power plant in Karaj. Israeli military spokesperson Daniel Hagari characterised these operations as “precise strikes” aimed at neutralising immediate threats to Israel.
Strategic security analyst Firas Elias told The New Arab that Israel’s delayed response was a “calculated decision to avoid undermining ongoing US diplomatic efforts in the region”.
He described the strikes as “limited in effect but broad,” emblematic of psychological warfare intended to “directly threaten [the] Iranian leadership,” particularly Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, rather than merely disrupt military capabilities.
Over 100 military aircraft, including advanced F-35 jets, participated in these operations, which were designed to minimise collateral damage to critical infrastructure and avoid targeting nuclear and oil facilities, likely as a strategic choice to prevent further escalation.
The F-35s took off from a distance of 2,000 kilometres and conducted attacks on two main areas: Al-Kharj and Tehran. In response, the Iranian military claimed to have intercepted a significant number of Israeli missiles, suggesting limited damage incurred by the strikes.
![Tehran, Iran [Getty]](https://www.newarab.com/sites/default/files/styles/large_16_9/public/2180337069.jpeg?h=a5f2f23a&itok=_-ENWyVT) Dubbed ‘Days of Repentance,’ the military operation encompassed three coordinated waves of attacks focusing on key assets associated with Iran’s military presence in Syria and Iraq, as well as its operational capabilities in Tehran. [Getty] |
Escalation comes at a greater cost
The timing of Israel’s retaliatory assaults appears carefully measured, observers say.
Initial Iranian missile attacks against Israel in early October set the stage for this response. However, some observers interpreted the strikes as tepid, considering the pre-strike warnings Israel conveyed to Iran through US channels.
This advance notification arguably allowed Iranian defences to prepare, leading some critics to label the Israeli operation as lacking in effectiveness.
Elias further noted that Iran’s subsequent declaration of its right to retaliate indicates that “Iran has begun to consider producing a political solution that would reposition itself in the region, preserve the infrastructure of its allies, Hamas and Hezbollah, and halt this level of military depletion caused by Israel”.
Related
How a war between Israel and Iran could impact oil prices
Analysis
Sabena Siddiqui
This strategic pivot towards diplomacy rather than open confrontation suggests a cautious balancing act as Iran seeks to navigate both internal and external pressures.
“This was made clear in Iran’s control of the behaviour of its allies in Iraq and the stabilisation of the Syrian and Yemeni arenas,” Elias explains, while betting on political solutions to end the state of war in Gaza and Lebanon and block other powers, such as Turkey and some Arab countries, from capitalising on the situation to weaken Iran and its allies.
US influence and regional calculations
Though not directly involved, Washington’s political and military backing for Israel was evident during the strikes. The recent deployment of the THAAD missile defence system highlighted US efforts to bolster Israeli defences amid concerns over missile shortages.
President Joe Biden’s remarks linking the strikes to broader de-escalation efforts underscored the US desire to maintain strategic stability in the region by exerting pressure on Israel to prevent it from targeting nuclear and oil facilities, limiting its strikes to military targets.
Ramallah-based analyst Ismat Mansour says that the imminent presence of US naval forces in the region underscores a concerted effort to deter Iran from excessive retaliation.
“Netanyahu mobilised world opinion against Iran to strike it, then threw the ball into its court after its last targeting under American sponsorship,” he told TNA. Israel’s threats and its insistence on striking sensitive and strategic facilities in Iran have made everyone in the region wary.
“If Iran responds now, that means that Netanyahu has the right to strike the facilities that he refrained from targeting this time, with broad American support,” Mansour explains.
With Israel poised to respond aggressively should Iran act upon its threats, the current situation places Tehran at a crossroads where any aggressive move could lead to a broader conflict.
 With Israel poised to respond aggressively should Iran act upon its threats, the current situation places Tehran at a crossroads where any aggressive move could lead to a broader conflict. [Getty] |
Drawing new red lines
Israel’s airstrikes extend beyond immediate military engagement; they may signal a paradigm shift in the longstanding conflict with Iran. While Israel seeks to establish new operational lines that deter Iranian aggression, its careful targeting strategy indicates a desire to avoid all-out war, framing the strikes in a manner that allows Iran to downplay the extent of the damage incurred.
Both analysts and military experts concur that the landscape of Israeli-Iranian interactions is evolving rapidly. Palestinian researcher and writer Yasser Manna says the introduction of new strategic red lines by both Iran and Israel indicates that they are “avoiding escalation towards a broad regional war, especially since the Israeli targeting did not include oil or nuclear facilities”.
This also suggests that the current events are merely part of a long path of ongoing confrontation that did not begin on 7 October and will not end with last week’s events.
“Neutralising efforts by Israel seem to be the nature of its present and future responses,” Manna says, as Israel has been able to nullify the threat emanating from Iran’s hypersonic missile programme and its main factories for missile engines, despite Iran’s attempts to downplay the significance of the attack.
However, the Iranian drone programme, with its dual capabilities, “could be Israel’s next target,” asserts Manna.
The stakes in this ongoing confrontation have never been higher. As analysts suggest, the current episode may just be the beginning of an escalatory cycle, where each side continues to probe for vulnerabilities, recalibrating their strategies in a bid for supremacy in an increasingly fraught Middle Eastern theatre.
This piece was published in collaboration with Egab.
