Israel’s attack on Iran ‘restrained’, designed to show Tehran’s ‘vulnerabilities’: Experts
Military experts say Israel’s overnight strikes on Iran represent a calculated and restrained response designed to demonstrate Israeli military capabilities while avoiding major escalation in an increasingly volatile Middle East.
The precision strikes, which targeted missile manufacturing facilities and air defense systems across Iran, mark the first major foreign attack on Iranian soil since the Iran-Iraq war, but were deliberately limited in scope, analysts say.
Strategic messaging
“We know very little at the moment. This looks more extensive than April but is still a restrained response aimed at emphasizing Israel’s conventional military superiority and removing threats in the form of missile production facilities, while not appearing escalatory,” Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), said.
The strikes on Tehran served to demonstrate Israel’s ability to penetrate Iranian airspace and defeat air defenses while avoiding civilian areas, drawing a sharp contrast with Iran’s recent missile barrage, Savill said.
“Striking Tehran makes public the Israeli ability to hit the capital and defeat Iranian air defenses,” he said, noting that the operation appeared “far more precise than the equivalent Iranian attack.”
Restraint was another word used by Raphael S. Cohen, senior political scientist and director of the Strategy & Doctrine Program at RAND’s Project AIR FORCE, who said that while he “was not surprised” Israel had struck Iran – after signalling so for weeks – the “more surprising aspect is that the response.”
“It seems to be comparatively restrained at least compared to what was being discussed,” he said. “Israel did not strike Iran’s nuclear facilities nor did it strike its oil infrastructure. Indeed, the initial reaction from Israeli opposition politicians was condemning the Netanyahu government from not being strong enough and engaging in military showmanship, which is a reversal of traditional political dynamics.”
“Ultimately, it seems like the Biden administration’s pressure on Israel to restrain its response seem to have worked.”
Degrading capabilities
Military analysts suggest the strikes have targeted Iran’s defensive and offensive capabilities.
“It’s possible that subsequent analysis will show that Iranian air defenses have been degraded, along with missile launch facilities, maybe drone production,” Savill said, adding these strikes were “intended to show the Iranians they are vulnerable to further strikes if they attempt retaliation.”
While Iranian media has downplayed the impact, the regime faces difficult choices in how to respond to what represents the largest conventional attack on its territory in decades, said Savill.
Regional implications
The strikes come amid heightened regional tensions following Iran’s October 1 missile attack on Israel and ongoing conflicts involving Iranian proxies, including Hezbollah and the Houthis.
“Iran is still caught in a dilemma about how to respond to the stripping away of its deterrent in the form of its regional partners,” Savill noted, warning that attacks by proxy groups could still trigger responses if they cause significant casualties.
“We still don’t know the extent to which more aggressive elements in the Iranian system might be advising the Supreme Leader, and media reporting and government briefings in Europe and the Middle East continue to highlight Iranian covert influence and assassination planning or operations.”
Western intelligence continues to monitor Iranian covert activities, with European and Middle Eastern government sources highlighting ongoing concerns about Iranian influence operations and potential assassination plots, said Savill.
While the immediate military exchange may be contained, analysts say fundamental tensions remain unresolved.
Key issues include “the progress of Iran’s nuclear program, the scale of the threat to Israel, other proxy activity, and the status of Israeli hostages,” according to Savill, adding: “An initial judgment might be that this looks like putting a cap on this bout between Israel and Iran, but the underlying points of friction remain.”
The Biden administration’s stance suggests a desire to prevent further escalation while maintaining support for Israel’s right to self-defense. US officials confirmed they received advance notice of the strikes but were not involved in their execution.
International response
World leaders have called for restraint following the strikes. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer acknowledged Israel’s right to self-defense while urging Iran not to respond. The US has explicitly called on Iran to “cease its attacks on Israel so that this cycle of fighting can end.” Qatar and Saudi Arabia have issued respective statements condemning the attacks, with the Kingdom urging for “maximum restraint” to prevent further escalation.
As regional powers assess their next moves, the international community remains focused on preventing wider escalation in a region already dealing with multiple ongoing conflicts.
The strikes occur amid complex regional dynamics, particularly following Iran’s October 1 missile barrage involving approximately 200 missiles fired at Israel in retaliation for the killing of Tehran-backed leaders belonging to Hamas and Hezbollah, and an IRGC general.
It marked Iran’s second direct attack on Israel in six months, triggered by Israel’s targeting of Hezbollah’s leadership in Lebanon.
Israel had vowed revenge against Tehran for the October 1 missile attack, with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant previously saying Israel’s retaliation would be “deadly, precise and surprising.”
‘A limited attack’
Thomas Juneau, an assistant professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, who focuses mostly on the Middle East, particularly Iran, said Israel only striking military sites implies “a limited attack, not on nuclear or energy sites, so a signal to Iran to de-escalate. Yet it seems to be an extensive attack, making it more difficult for Iran not to retaliate.”
However, he said “even if the situation de-escalates now, a big if, we would not return to the same status quo. This was the biggest direct Israeli attack on Iran ever. With every time a new cycle of tit-for-tat, new precedents are set, potentially raising the baseline of violence for the next rounds.”
He added: “Are we surprised by the attacks? No, we are not. There was 100 percent probability that Israel was going to retaliate against Iran’s October 1 strikes. The only question was when – and how. If there was an element of uncertainty, it was whether Israel would only target military sites in Iran or if it would expand the strikes to nuclear or energy or other sites.”
“Now we know that Israel has focused only on military, and that is an important distinction, because it is an invitation, if you will, for Iran not to retaliate. It is an invitation to the escalator, because in a scenario where Israel would have struck nuclear or energy sites, that would have seriously raised the likelihood that Iran would respond.”
Possible retaliation
Juneau said, even though a lot of detail is still unclear, it was still “a fairly extensive package of strikes on military sites.”
“According to some reporting, there might have been about 20 sites, including missile production facilities. So, in the range of scenarios, focusing only on military sites is a fairly extensive one.”
“So that does make it a bit more difficult for you on how to retaliate, because here the dilemma on Iran side is that if it doesn’t retaliate, and if it takes the invitation to deescalate, it will be projecting a message or a signal of weakness…that is not something Iran wants to do.”
“So that is a damaging perspective for Iran, and obviously it also sends a message weakness to Israel and the US.”
Juneau said, on the other hand, for Iran, retaliation is extremely risky, because “what is now is very clear, is Iran’s military inferiority relative to Israel.”
“I mean, we knew that before, but now it is very clear.”
He pointed to the October 1 attack when Iran sent almost 200 missiles to Israel.
“From Iran’s perspective (that) is a significant capability, and the damage was minimal because Israel’s air defenses are extremely effective and were able to almost fully block the Iranian attack overnight.”
“What we saw was Israel use a portion of its capabilities but penetrate Iranian airspace, penetrate the damage to the Iranian missile and air defenses, and cause at least some damage to Iranian military infrastructure. So that the message here, the psychological message is, that Israel is, we can penetrate your airspace…we can get your most vertical sites, and at least based on the information that I have so far from Israel’s perspective, suffering absolutely no damage – i.e. no Israeli planes were shut down.”
“So, the one of the key components here is Israel conventional military superiority, and this is something that Iran is keenly aware of.”
Iran likely to ‘deescalate tensions’
Professor Yossi Mekelberg, senior consulting fellow for the MENA Program at the Chatham House think tank, said that he believes Iran would like to deescalate tensions and said while there has been a “downplaying” of Saturday’s strikes, they were “serious.”
“Everything can be worse – it depends on what you expect…such as the targeting of oil or gas or the killing of leaders. But it is still serious. When a country has the ability thousands of miles away from home to attack air systems, and send missiles … this is serious.”
“I agree to a point it is not the attack it could have been,” he added, agreeing it could be seen as “restrained.”
Prof. Mekelberg said the fact the attack avoided civilian areas or key energy infrastructure “leaves open the possibility for diplomatic efforts.”
“I think right now the signs from Iran is that it wants to deescalate – and it wants to bring an end to this. By not admitting (the scale of the attack), gives Iran the room not to retaliate.”
He said Israel has clearly managed to felex its muscles in the past year by “eliminated Hamas leadership and almost all of Hezbollah leadership,” adding, “the axis of resistance suffered not only military setbacks but also humiliation.”
“From an Iranian point of view, if they go forward (with retaliation) (they should ask) will it look worse for us? Israel is managing to inflict quite a bit of harm on Iran and its proxies. My sense Iran would like to deescalate (tensions).”
Dr Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East North Africa Programme for Chatham House, told Al Arabiya English that he believed that the attacks were not a surprise to Tehran.
“Israel has made it clear through alerts and further warnings against escalation. This is certainly the largest strike on Iran proper for decades and has showcased Iran’s vulnerabilities, but the three- and half-week lag that saw diplomatic outreach and coordination between the US and Israel has led to a targeted and telegraphed attack on military targets.”
“This gives space for Iran to play down the impact and lower the temperature to avoid war. The US election and Iran’s own military constraints prevent Tehran from further escalation for now.”
However, Cohen said that he believes “there are limits to Israeli restraint.”
“Israel views the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat, not without reason given that Iran has launched now two large salvos of ballistic missiles against the country (so just imagine those missiles were nuclear tipped). Unless that program is brought under control, this cycle of strikes and counter strikes are far from over.”
Assaf Orion, Liz and Mony Rueven International Fellow for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that Israel’s strike was anticipated in response to Iran’s 1 October missile barrage, and yet a first widescale direct strike on Iran since its war with Iraq in the 1980s.
“It was a well calibrated strike, combining direct effects and strategic messaging,” he said. “Reportedly, Israel struck main air defense systems (S400) in Iran, as well as in Syria and possibly Iraq, and also ballistic missile production sites, arms depots and IRGC sites.”
“These strikes degraded Iran’s missile potential against Israel, the region and the West, while paving an aerial route from Israel to Iran over the axis of resistance airspace and exposing Iran to future attacks if it chooses to escalate further.”
Orion said the strategic messages on one hand signal Iran’s vulnerability and Israel’s capability and resolve to attack is at will, but on the other hand emphasizes what Israel chose not to strike this time: the nuclear program, oil and national infrastructure and regime targets.
“This reminds Iran the possible costs if it chooses to escalate or to begin a direct war of attrition with Israel,” he said. “The strike characteristics, Iran’s initial dismissal of its results and the close Israel-US coordination allow both sides to avoid farther escalation before the November election. Meanwhile, the multi-front war that Iran and its proxies wage against Israel continues, awaiting a diplomatic resolution.”
Meanwhile, Israel has been fighting Hamas in the Gaza Strip since the Iran-backed Palestinian armed group’s October 7, 2023, attack, which resulted in the deaths of 1,206 people in Israel, mostly civilians.
The Lebanon-based Hezbollah group, also backed by Tehran, has fired missiles at Israel in solidarity with Hamas since the Hamas attack.
Diplomatic considerations
The US position has been carefully calibrated, with President Biden explicitly warning Israel against striking Iran’s nuclear sites and advising against targeting oil infrastructure.
“We understand that Israel is conducting targeted strikes against military targets in Iran as an exercise of self-defense,” said White House National Security Council spokesperson Sean Savett on Saturday, confirming US awareness but non-involvement in the operation.
Later on Saturday, a senior Biden administration official confirmed to reporters in a call that the US was aware of the specific targets involved, and that President Biden has urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to ensure the response remains targeted, proportional, and with minimal risk to civilians.
The US stated its readiness to support Israel should Iran retaliate, but said it believed this strike should mark the end of direct military exchanges between Iran and Israel.
To bolster Israel’s security, the US worked to enhance Israeli air defenses leading up to the attack.
Additionally, the administration confirmed that ceasefire outlines are now in place for Lebanon and Gaza, with diplomatic efforts expected to continue in the coming days.
The Biden administration’s stance reflects broader diplomatic efforts to contain regional escalation. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week emphasized the importance of Israel’s response not leading to greater escalation.
Military capabilities
The Israeli operation demonstrated significant military capabilities, particularly in penetrating Iranian airspace and conducting precision strikes.
The military operation’s precision and scope suggest careful planning to achieve specific strategic objectives while minimizing escalation risks. As noted by RUSI’s Savill, the strikes appeared “far more precise than the equivalent Iranian attack.”
Iranian media’s initial response has been notably measured, with state outlets downplaying the attacks’ impact. The Fars news agency reported strikes on military bases in western and southwestern Tehran, while emphasizing normalcy in daily activities.
The semi-linked Tasnim news agency reported that IRGC bases sustained no damage, though these claims remain unverified.
Iranian authorities continue to maintain their warning that any further Israeli actions will face stronger retaliation.
