In April, when Iran launched missiles at Israel, the Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, responded with a limited strike on an air defense system near Isfahan, showcasing Israel’s technological capabilities without escalating the situation further.
However, following a significantly larger 180-missile barrage from Iran on Tuesday night, which Israeli officials described as more severe than expected, Israel’s response is anticipated to be more forceful. Netanyahu stated, “Iran made a big mistake tonight, and it will pay for it.”
Current and former officials have outlined potential Israeli responses, including attacks on missile launchers or oil infrastructure within Iran, with some even considering strikes on nuclear facilities.
In April, Israel also had to consider the potential reaction from Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group allied with Iran, which could retaliate with rocket attacks on Israeli cities. Yet, according to Israeli officials, a recent devastating offensive against Hezbollah has weakened its capability significantly. This offensive led to the killing of Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah, disrupting its command structure, and a bombing campaign in Lebanon that resulted in over 1,000 deaths and the destruction of a significant portion of the group’s missile arsenal.
The United States, which restrained Israel in April, appears less likely to do so this time. US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan warned that Iran would face severe consequences for its latest attack and stated that the US will support Israel in ensuring this outcome. Tehran claimed its missile barrage was in retaliation for the assassinations of Nasrallah and Hamas’s political leader Ismail Haniyeh in July.
Israel’s military response options are varied. In the past, Israel has been associated with covert operations against Iran, including the 2010 Stuxnet cyberattack on Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and the 2020 assassination of a prominent nuclear scientist near Tehran. Given the scale of the latest attack, Israel is expected to respond with direct military strikes on Iranian targets.
According to Yaakov Amidror, a former national security adviser to Netanyahu and a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America in Washington, a kinetic element in Israel’s response appears inevitable. Some options under consideration include economic targets such as Iran’s oil production facilities. This approach was exemplified by a recent Israeli operation against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, where Israeli jets bombed power plants and a port used for importing military supplies. This operation was seen as a potential prototype for a strike on Iran, though a strike on Iran would be more complex and might disrupt oil markets ahead of the presidential election, an outcome the US administration would likely want to avoid.
Diplomats are urging Israel to consider a more symmetric response by targeting the Iranian missile launchers involved in the recent barrage, as this would be less likely to incite further retaliation. Another option includes targeting senior Iranian figures instead of infrastructure, with Netanyahu referencing past assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders as a warning.
Some analysts, like Beni Sabti from the Institute of National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, believe targeting Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei might be too escalatory, but suggest senior figures within Iran’s Revolutionary Guard could be viable targets.
There are also calls from hawkish figures for Israel to take advantage of Hezbollah’s current weakness to launch attacks on Iran’s nuclear program, which Israel sees as a significant strategic threat. For example, former prime minister Naftali Bennett suggested using the opportunity to cripplingly strike Iran’s nuclear and energy facilities.
Although a significant strike on Iran’s nuclear capabilities would be a much larger endeavor, potentially requiring US support, Amidror emphasized that any Israeli response should be precise and decisive to demonstrate to Iran the substantial cost of attacking Israel.
The need to convey a strong message, rather than solve broader historical issues, is paramount, according to Amidror. “What we want is to show Iranians that there is a price, a big one, that they will pay if they continue to attack Israel,” he stated.
Additional reporting was contributed by Henry Foy in Brussels, with data visualization by Steven Bernard and Alan Smith.
