Israel’s attack on Iran was carefully calibrated following internal divisions

DUBAI/JERUSALEM:

Israel’s apparent strike on Iran after days of wavering was small and seemed calibrated to cover the risks of a major war, even if the sheer fact that it happened broke a taboo on direct attacks that Tehran broke days earlier.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war cabinet had initially approved plans for a Monday night strike inside Iranian soil to respond forcefully to last Saturday’s missile and drone strikes by Iran, but backed out at the last minute, three sources with knowledge of the matter said. of the situation.

By then, the sources said, the three voting members of the war cabinet had already ruled out the most drastic response — a strike on strategic sites, including Iran’s nuclear facilities, whose destruction would almost certainly trigger a wider regional conflict. .

Facing cabinet divisions and strong warnings from partners including the United States and the Gulf not to escalate, and aware of the need to keep international opinion on Israel’s side, plans for the response were twice postponed, the sources said. . Two meetings of the war cabinet were also delayed twice, government officials said.

Netanyahu’s office did not respond to requests for comment for this story. Before the attack, a government spokesman for the National Directorate of Public Diplomacy reported that Netanyahu said Israel would defend itself in any way it sees fit.

Read more: Tehran downplays suspected Israeli attack, signals no retaliation

Reuters spoke to a dozen sources in Israel, Iran and the Gulf region, as well as the United States, who described six frantic days of efforts in the Gulf, the US and among some of Israel’s war planners to limit the response to Iran’s first attack. -Always direct attack on her arch rival after decades of shadow wars.

“We have warned of the grave danger inherent in further escalation,” Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi told Reuters, saying a wider regional conflict would have devastating consequences and risk distracting global attention from Israel’s ongoing war in Gauze.

Safadi said his country, which borders Israel, “had made it clear to everyone that it will not be a battleground for Israel and Iran. This firm position was given unequivocally to everyone.”

Most of the sources asked not to be named to discuss sensitive matters.

The final strike on Friday appeared to target an Iranian Air Force base near the city of Isfahan, deep inside the country and close enough to nuclear facilities to send a message of Israel’s reach, but without using planes, ballistic missiles, hit strategic locations or cause heavy damage.

Iran said its defense systems shot down three drones over a base near Isfahan early Friday. Israel has not said anything about the incident. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said the United States had not engaged in any aggressive operations.

An Iranian official told Reuters there were indications the drones were launched from inside Iran by “intruders”, which could prevent the need for retaliation.

A source familiar with Western intelligence assessments of the incident also said early evidence suggested Israel had launched drones from inside Iranian territory. Iran’s foreign ministry did not respond to a request for comment.

“Israel tried to balance between the need to respond and the desire not to get into a cycle of action and reaction that would just escalate endlessly,” said Itamar Rabinovitch, Israel’s former ambassador to Washington.

He described the situation as a dance, with both sides signaling to each other their intentions and next steps.

Also read: Israeli military vows response to Iran attack as calls for restraint grow

“There is huge relief in the Gulf region. It appears that the attack was limited and proportionate and caused limited damage. I see it as a de-escalation,” said veteran Saudi analyst Abdelrahman al-Rashed. Reuters.

Calling Biden

The decision to hold back from broader and immediate action this week underscored competing pressures on Netanyahu’s government after more than 300 drones and ballistic and cruise missiles were fired by Iran on Saturday night.

As Iran’s barrage unfolded, two war cabinet members, Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, both former military commanders, wanted to respond immediately before agreeing to pause after a call with US President Joe Biden and in the face of differing views from other ministers, two Israeli officials with knowledge of the situation said.

A spokesman for Gantz, a centrist who joined Netanyahu’s emergency government after Hamas attacked Israel last October, did not respond to a request for comment.

The US State Department declined to comment on questions about Israel’s decision-making. Washington was working to de-escalate tensions, Blinken said on Friday. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Aryeh Deri, head of one of the ultra-Orthodox parties in Netanyahu’s coalition, who has observer status in the war cabinet and has generally been wary of drastic moves, was staunchly opposed to a direct strike against Iran, which he believed would could endanger the people of Israel given the risk of escalation, a spokesman for his party said.

“We should also listen to our partners, our friends in the world. I say it clearly: I see no shame or weakness in this,” Deri told the “Haderech” newspaper.

Israel’s options ranged from strikes on strategic Iranian facilities, including nuclear facilities or Revolutionary Guard bases, to covert operations, targeted assassinations and cyberattacks on strategic industrial and nuclear facilities, analysts and former officials in Israel said.

Gulf countries were increasingly concerned that the situation would develop into “a serious regional conflagration that may be beyond anyone’s control or ability to contain,” said Abdelaziz al-Sagher, head of the Gulf Research Center. based in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have publicly called for maximum “restraint” to spare the region from a wider war.

Sager said the Gulf countries had warned the United States of the risk of escalation, arguing that Israel should only launch a limited attack without casualties or significant damage that could trigger major retaliation.

Those messages were “broadcast vigorously” in recent days by the Jordanians, Saudis and Qataris through direct security and diplomatic channels, a senior regional intelligence source said.

The governments of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

By Thursday, four diplomatic and government sources in the region were confident the response would be limited and proportionate.

Ahead of the overnight Israeli attack, a regional source briefed on Israel’s thinking said the response would aim to minimize or avoid casualties altogether and would likely target a military base.

Israel’s flight of F-35 fighter jets to Iran or the launch of missiles by Israel would almost certainly violate the airspace of neighboring countries, angering Arab states that Netanyahu has long sought to cultivate as strategic allies, a government official said. Gulf source with knowledge of the issues. .

He couldn’t “just fly F-35 fighter jets all over the region and bomb Iran or its nuclear facilities,” the source said.

Iranian officials had warned that a major Israeli attack would trigger immediate retaliation.

Iran’s options to respond included closing the Strait of Hormuz through which about a fifth of the world’s oil passes, urging proxies to hurt Israeli or US interests and deploying previously unused missiles, he said. senior Iranian official.

While satisfying Israel’s moderates at home, its neighbors and international partners, the measured blow, when it came, was met with dismay by hardliners in Netanyahu’s cabinet.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, whose ultra-nationalist party is a mainstay in Netanyahu’s coalition, posted a word on X, “Feeble.”