H. M. Nazmul Alam

In the complex and volatile geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, Israel and Iran have long been on a collision course. The tension between these two regional powers has escalated over the years, marked by covert operations, proxy wars, and direct military confrontations. The recent Iranian missile attack on Israel represents yet another flashpoint in this enduring conflict, but it also points out a critical question: What will Israel's strategy be in responding to such aggression?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's unequivocal warning—"Iran has made a big mistake, and it will pay the price"—indicates that Israel is preparing for a substantial counterstrike. However, the nature, scope, and timing of this response are far from simple. Israel's strategy in dealing with Iranian provocations involves a combination of targeted assassinations, airstrikes, and diplomatic maneuvering, all aimed at deterring future attacks while avoiding a full-scale war.

A History of Tension and Escalation

To understand Israel’s current predicament, one must first appreciate the broader context. For years, Israel and Iran have engaged in a shadow war across multiple theaters, including Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza. Iran’s support for Hezbollah and its proxy militias in these regions, coupled with its pursuit of nuclear capabilities, has made it Israel's primary security concern.

The assassination of key figures, such as Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, has further inflamed tensions. Iran’s recent missile attack, a direct assault on Israeli territory, signals a shift from proxy warfare to overt confrontation. Israel now faces the dual challenge of responding to this aggression without triggering an uncontrollable spiral of retaliation.

Israel’s Two-Pronged Approach, Assassination and Deterrence

Israel’s military doctrine revolves around deterrence—convincing its adversaries that any attack will be met with overwhelming force. This strategy has historically included targeted assassinations of key figures within hostile organizations and precision airstrikes on military infrastructure.

In the case of Iran, Israeli intelligence has been particularly adept at identifying and neutralizing key operatives involved in planning and executing attacks against Israeli interests. Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, has been credited with a series of high-profile operations inside Iran, including the assassination of nuclear scientists and senior military officials. These actions, while often covert, send a clear message to Tehran: No one is beyond Israel’s reach.

However, the scope of deterrence extends beyond individual targets. Israel’s air force routinely strikes Iranian military installations in Syria and Lebanon, where Iranian-backed militias operate. These strikes aim to degrade Iran’s military capabilities while avoiding large-scale civilian casualties, thus minimizing international condemnation. Israel’s goal is to maintain its qualitative military edge in the region, ensuring that any attempt by Iran to escalate will be met with a disproportionate response.

Targeting Iranian Infrastructure

The recent missile attack places Israel in a position where a significant military response seems inevitable. As former Israeli intelligence official Avi Melamed suggests, Iran's strike is not merely a provocation but a test of Israel's resolve. How Israel chooses to respond will shape the trajectory of this conflict.

A likely course of action for Israel involves targeting the specific military installations from which the missile attack originated. These could include command and control centers, missile launch sites, and refueling stations. By focusing on these strategic targets, Israel aims to cripple Iran’s ability to launch further attacks while avoiding a broader war.

Another critical aspect of Israel’s strategy is its intelligence apparatus. In the aftermath of the missile strike, Israel will likely ramp up its intelligence activities inside Iran, identifying those responsible for ordering and executing the attack. Covert operations, such as sabotage or assassinations, may be employed to neutralize these individuals and signal to Tehran that any act of aggression will be met with severe consequences.

The Nuclear Question

One of the most contentious aspects of Israel’s potential response involves Iran’s nuclear program. While the recent missile attack does not appear to be directly linked to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Israel has long viewed Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities as an existential threat. This raises the possibility that Israel’s retaliation could extend beyond conventional military targets to include Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In the past, Israel has carried out symbolic strikes near Iranian nuclear sites to demonstrate its capabilities without triggering a full-scale war. These strikes, while limited in scope, serve as a warning to Tehran that Israel is prepared to go further if necessary. If Israel were to target key nuclear installations this time, it would undoubtedly provoke a significant Iranian counterstrike, locking the two nations into a cycle of retaliation.

The threat of such an escalation is particularly concerning given Iran’s history of responding forcefully to Israeli attacks. In the wake of Israel’s 2024 airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Iran launched 300 missiles and drones targeting Israeli positions. A similar, if not more intense, response could be expected if Israel were to strike Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

US and Global Diplomacy

Israel’s strategic calculations are also heavily influenced by its international alliances, particularly with the United States. Washington has consistently supported Israel’s right to defend itself, and in the wake of the recent missile attack, US officials have reaffirmed their commitment to Israel’s security.

White House National Security Adviser Jack Sullivan has emphasized that the US is working closely with Israel on its next steps. However, the Biden administration, like previous US governments, is keen to avoid a broader regional war that could destabilize the Middle East and draw in other powers.

At the same time, the United Nations and the European Union have called for a ceasefire, urging both sides to exercise restraint. The UN Security Council’s upcoming meeting will likely focus on preventing further escalation, but diplomatic efforts alone may not be enough to halt the momentum toward conflict.

The Risk of a Perpetual Cycle

As Israel weighs its response, one of the key dangers is becoming locked in a perpetual cycle of attack and retaliation. Each Israeli strike on Iranian targets is likely to provoke a counterstrike, which in turn demands another Israeli response. This cycle, if unchecked, could lead to a prolonged and destructive conflict, with devastating consequences for the region.

The situation is further complicated by Iran’s network of proxies across the Middle East. Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen could all be drawn into the conflict, further expanding its scope. Israel must therefore carefully calibrate its actions to avoid igniting a wider war that would be difficult to control.

A Delicate Balance of Power

In responding to Iran’s missile attack, Israel faces a delicate balancing act. On one hand, it must demonstrate its resolve and deter future aggression. On the other, it must avoid provoking a full-scale war that could destabilize the entire region. Israel’s strategy of targeted assassinations, precision airstrikes, and diplomatic engagement has served it well in the past, but the current situation presents unique challenges.

As Israel’s defense chiefs review their options, one thing is clear: The conflict between Israel and Iran is far from over. Whichever path Israel chooses, it will be navigating a dangerous and uncertain future, where the risk of escalation is ever-present. The world watches as two of the Middle East’s most powerful nations inch closer to the brink of war, with the potential consequences echoing far beyond their borders.

The writer is a, Lecturer, Dept. of English and Modern Languages, International University of Business, Agriculture and Technology