Israel's Calibrated Attack On Iran Gives Both Countries An Off-Ramp

Israel on October 26 struck military targets deep inside Iranian territory, but the extent of its promised attack was more calibrated than many feared.

The region has been on edge since October 1, after Israel promised that Iran "will pay" for launching its largest-ever direct attack -- almost 200 ballistic missiles in all -- on its archfoe.

The main concern was whether Israel would strike Iranian nuclear facilities or energy infrastructure, each carrying its own risks.

Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, told RFE/RL that if the scale and scope of Israel's attack remained restricted, "an off-ramp has been provided for both sides to step back from the brink."

Since the early hours of October 26, when Iranian state television acknowledged loud explosions had been heard around Tehran, news outlets and Telegram accounts that support the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) sought to downplay the significance of the attack.

Some pro-IRGC channels on Telegram went as far as alleging that Israeli media were critical of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for launching a "disappointing" attack on Iran.

Why The Measured Response?

Israel had been under pressure for weeks from its ally the United States and Persian Gulf Arab states to formulate its response in a way that would not plunge the region into an all-out war.

In a sign of Washington's diplomatic efforts, the Pentagon moved quickly after reports of the attack to say the United States was made aware of Israel's plans beforehand, but that there was no U.S. involvement in the military move.

"U.S. pressure has had an impact and Israel may have preferred to avoid dragging Washington into an escalation the U.S. does not want, particularly ahead of the [U.S. presidential] elections," said Michael Horowitz, head of intelligence at the Bahrain-based Le Beck International consultancy.

Gulf states were worried that an attack on Iran's energy infrastructure would have a blowback on their own oil and gas facilities, while the wider international community was concerned that hitting Iran's nuclear facilities would compel Iran to develop a bomb.

People stand around the remains of an Iranian ballistic missile after strikes on Israel near the southern city of Arad on October 2.

While measured, the Israeli attack still marked the largest aerial strike on Iran since the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s and carried a "clear message," Horowitz said.

"Israel can operate deep within Iran, relatively freely. This freedom of operation may have further expanded after last night, as Israel likely took out some of Iran's air defenses," he said.

The Iranian Army said two soldiers were killed while "repelling" the Israeli attack, suggesting that they were involved in air-defense operations. Experts say their deaths are unlikely to have much of an impact on whether and how Iran responds to Israel.

"I don't think this specific incident is going to prompt Iran in a significant way, because there has been no indication suggesting that causing casualties was Israel's aim," said Hamidreza Azizi, a fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

Some reports say Israel telegraphed its attack to Iran, which Azizi said indicated that Israel wanted the conflict "to at least remain within certain boundaries."

The extent of the damage caused by the attack is unclear and satellite imagery will likely provide a clearer picture of the targets and scale of damage. Unless the damage is significant, experts say, Iran will either forego a response or opt for a retaliation on the lower end of the spectrum, which could involve attacks on Israel by its proxies.

Eroded Deterrence

After Iran launched a barrage of drones and missiles at Israel in April, it said it had established a "new equation" whereby every Israeli action against Iran would be met with a response.

The attack, which came in response to the suspected Israeli bombing of Iran's embassy compound in Damascus, Syria, was meant to reestablish Iran's deterrence against its archrival.

Horowitz says Israel does not appear deterred and that Iran's deterrence largely relied on its regional allies and proxies, particularly on Hezbollah, the Lebanese political party and armed group that controls much of southern Lebanon.

Israel has been carrying out a weekslong aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Lebanon targeting the leadership and military capabilities of Hezbollah, which has been designated as a terrorist entity by the U.S. but the EU has blacklisted only its military wing.

Horowitz said Iran's deterrence "has now been eroded," which he argued will have unpredictable long-term consequences.

"The main problem, in my opinion, is that there is in fact no 'equation' -- we're in uncharted territory, which makes it very dangerous," he added.