Israel dropped plans for an extensive counterstrike on Iran due to diplomatic pressures and strategic considerations, The New York Times reported, citing senior Israeli officials speaking on condition of anonymity. Israeli leaders initially mulled a wide-ranging assault on multiple military targets in Iran, including locations near Tehran, in response to an Iranian strike on Israeli soil.
The potential ramifications of such an attack, however, raised concerns about escalating tensions in the Middle East region to the brink of a major conflict. US President Joe Biden urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to exercise restraint and prevent a wider war. Due to the phone call, Israel opted for a more limited strike on Friday that was aimed at minimising damage and reducing the likelihood of escalation. The attack, while less expansive, aimed to demonstrate Israel’s military capabilities to Iran.
READ MORE: ‘Israeli Attack’ On Secret Nuclear Site Designed To Warn Iran Of Wider Consequences, Says Report
Instead of deploying fighter jets into Iranian airspace, Israel launched a small number of missiles from aircraft positioned hundreds of miles away, along with deploying small attack drones to confuse Iranian air defences. The NYT report said that one missile struck an antiaircraft battery in a strategically important area of central Iran, while another exploded in midair. Israeli officials indicated that the decision to destroy the second missile intentionally, once the first had reached its target.
The strategic intent behind Israel’s actions was to signal to Iran its ability to strike without entering Iranian airspace or triggering its air defence systems. By targeting military facilities in central Iran, including sites housing major nuclear facilities like Natanz’s uranium enrichment site, Israel sought to underscore its reach and capability. The chain of events leading to the attack began with Israel’s strike on an Iranian embassy complex in Damascus, Syria, on April 1, which resulted in the deaths of seven Iranian officials.
Unlike previous incidents, Iran responded with signals indicating a willingness to retaliate directly against Israel — a departure from its past approach. As tensions escalated, Israel prepared for both defensive and offensive measures in anticipation of an Iranian strike. Initially anticipating a smaller-scale attack, Israeli intelligence later revised their estimates, indicating a potential onslaught involving large drones and ballistic missiles. However, Iran’s actual attack surpassed expectations, with over 100 ballistic missiles, 170 drones, and 30 cruise missiles launched.
Despite the mammoth scale of the attack, Israel’s coordinated defence, with help from allied nations, effectively neutralised most of the incoming threats. A key moment occurred in an early-morning phone call between Netanyahu and Biden, where the latter encouraged Israel to view the successful defence as a victory requiring no further immediate response. Israel then signaled its intent to respond in a more contained manner, deviating from its plans for a broader counterattack. The decision to execute the attack in a limited fashion aimed to convey a message to Iran without escalating tensions.
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.
