Israel's Measured Attack on Iran Calibrated to Avoid a Response

(ATTA KENARE/AFP via Getty Images)

A general view of Tehran after several explosions amid an Israeli attack were heard there Oct. 26, 2024.

Israel's restrained attack against Iran decreases the risk of an all-out war between the two, though future miscalculations and the ongoing wars in Gaza and Lebanon mean the risk of another escalation persists. In the early hours of Oct. 26, the Israel Defense Forces' spokesperson announced via a televised address that dozens of Israeli fighter jets conducted "precise strikes" against "military targets" in Iran. Before the announcement, numerous explosions were reported around Iran's capital Tehran, specifically its western sector where the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, headquarters is based, and the city of Karaj in the northwest. The operation was reportedly conducted in three waves, with the first focused on defeating Iran's air defense system, while the second and third waves targeted missile and drone bases and weapons production sites. Iranian state media outlets including Tasnim News Agency downplayed the attack, claiming air defenses repelled attacks on Tehran, Khuzestan and Ilam provinces and that the damage to military targets was limited. Meanwhile, Israel declared that the attack was completed and fulfilled, warning Iran that any retaliation would be met with a more significant strike.

U.S.-based news website Axios reported on Oct. 26 that Israel sent messages to Iran ahead of the attack on Oct. 25 through third parties informing Tehran of the targets and warning Iran that any retaliation would be met by another more significant attack, especially if Israelis were injured.
Axios also reported that the U.S. Biden administration had prior knowledge of the Israeli attack and told Iran that this should be the end of exchanges between the two countries. Though both U.S. and Israeli officials have expressed concerns that the Iranians could retaliate, they reportedly hope a response will be limited to ending the exchanges.

The attack is an Israeli deterrent message that aims to degrade Iran's capabilities and signal Israel's intent to avoid a broader war, and it comes in response to Iran's Oct. 1 ballistic missile strikes on Israel. For weeks, the Israeli military has been signaling its intent to retaliate for Iran's Oct. 1 attack on Israel, during which Tehran launched around 200 ballistic missiles toward Israeli civilian and military targets, damaging Israeli air bases. Iran's attack was launched as revenge for Israel's killing of Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah on Sept. 27, alongside a senior IRGC commander, and the killing of Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31. Numerous leaks and reports since Oct. 1 suggested that Israel was mulling a response that could target Iran's nuclear program or its oil and gas infrastructure, which would have been a significant escalation. With tensions in the region running high amid the wars in Lebanon and Gaza, and fearing an all-out war between Israel and Iran, the U.S. administration pressured Israel to avoid targeting major Iranian oil and gas infrastructure, striking nuclear facilities or assassinating Iran's senior leadership. In the meantime, Iranian officials have been warning that they would prefer to avoid an all-out war, but should Israel cross its red lines, they are preparing for one. Israel's decision to respond proportionately against military targets in Tehran suggests that the threat of a wider war has temporarily decreased, though the risk of miscalculation remains persistent amid heightened tensions in the region.

Ahead of the Oct. 26 attacks, the United States had been bolstering its forces in the Middle East, as well as deploying a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system to help defend Israel from future attacks and deter Iran from launching one.
Reports from Israel's Kan News public broadcaster claimed on Oct. 6 that the Biden administration offered Israel a "compensation package" that includes a weapons package and comprehensive diplomatic protection if Israel refrains from launching strikes against certain targets in Iran, likely including nuclear facilities and/or oil and gas infrastructure.
The current tit-for-tat exchange is the second in 2024. On April 13, Iran launched more than 300 projectiles, including cruise and ballistic missiles and drones, toward Israel in response to Israel's April 1 attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria.

Israel's restrained attack suggests that Iran's response, if there is one at all, will be similarly restrained, though an attack that leads to Israeli civilian or military casualties would likely lead to another Israeli response that could be escalatory. While Iran is likely to de-escalate to avoid a costly tit-for-tat cycle with Israel that would also drag in the United States, Iran may respond militarily should assessments reveal that the Israeli strikes caused more damage than expected. Since the April 2024 exchange, Iran has vowed to respond to any Israeli attack on Iranian soil, and its leaders may decide that they need to back up these statements with retaliatory action. Should a potential attack on Israel lead to only material damage, this could then provide Israel with an off-ramp to de-escalate and refrain from a counter-response. However, an Iranian attack that leads to numerous Israeli military or civilian casualties would likely compel Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government to respond by escalating attacks, aiming to reimpose deterrence on Iran. An impactful Iranian attack would also likely lead the United States to participate in the defense of Israel, keeping tensions high between Washington and Tehran, though U.S. participation in an attack against Iran is very unlikely.

Axios also reported that Israeli and U.S. officials expect Tehran to respond to the attack, though they hope the response will be limited so they can end the current exchange of fire.
Tasnim News Agency reported on Oct. 26 that Iranian sources claimed Tehran is ready to retaliate against the Israeli attacks, reserving the right to respond to any "act of aggression."

Even if Iran refrains from counter-attacking, the wars in Lebanon and Gaza mean the risk of a miscalculation that brings them to another round of direct confrontation persists, especially as both Israel and Iran demonstrate a high degree of risk tolerance. Israel and Iran are likely to pause direct military confrontation in the foreseeable future to avoid a larger conflict that could involve the United States and other regional players. Instead, they are expected to continue their indirect "shadow war," with Iran working through proxies and Israel targeting IRGC assets in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon and covert activity targeting each other directly. However, tensions remain due to Iran's involvement in Israel's ongoing conflicts in Lebanon and Gaza, maintaining the risk of escalation. For instance, Israeli attacks on IRGC commanders or Iranian embassies could trigger a direct Iranian response, raising the chances of a broader conflict drawing in external powers.

The Iranian attack was part of Iran's new strategy of directly retaliating against Israel for any direct attack against its senior leadership or major institutions in the region, such as an embassy or a consulate. This means an Israeli attack that kills a senior IRGC official would likely prompt another round of Iranian retaliation.