For more than a decade, Israel has been rehearsing bombing and missile operations to deprive Iran of its nuclear production capabilities, many based in the city of Isfahan and around the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility 120 kilometers (120 kilometers) to the north.
That's not what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's wartime cabinet chose in the early hours of Friday, and analysts and nuclear experts said in interviews that the decision is telling.
So was the silence that followed. Israel has said little about the limited strikes, which appear to have caused little damage to Iran. U.S. officials say Iran's decision to downplay the explosion in Isfahan, and Iranian officials' suggestions that Israel may not be responsible, is an apparent attempt by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to avoid further escalation. He pointed out that it was an effort.
Inside the White House, officials urged the Pentagon, State Department and intelligence community to keep quiet about the operation in hopes of easing Iran's efforts to defuse tensions in the region.
But officials were quick to add in interviews that they fear relations between Israel and Iran are now in a much different place than they were just a week ago. There is no longer a taboo on direct attacks on each other's territory. Another round of conflict, such as the conflict over Iran's nuclear program or a new Israeli attack on Iranian military officers, could give each side more freedom to attack the other directly.
Prime Minister Netanyahu was under conflicting pressures. President Biden urges Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “earn victory” after Iranian airstrikes last week had little effect, while Israeli hardliners urge Netanyahu to re-establish deterrence He called for a fierce counterattack. This is the first attempt to attack Israel directly from Iranian territory in the 45 years since the Iranian revolution.
U.S. officials said they quickly realized they could not dissuade Mr. Netanyahu from any visible reaction.
So the White House and Pentagon urged them to take steps that amounted to what one senior U.S. official called “a signal, not an attack,” while minimizing the possibility of casualties. But while this was a minimal option, the long-term implications for the Revolutionary Guards and the team of scientists working on Iran's nuclear program could be significant. Accelerating efforts to put more nuclear facilities deep underground and expanding nuclear facilities to make it more difficult for nuclear inspectors to see where Iran is conducting its most sensitive work. There is a possibility that
And U.S. officials fear it will escalate the conflict over the nuclear program itself, which has become increasingly opaque to inspectors over the past two years.
The signal sent by the decision to attack conventional military targets in Isfahan was clear. Israel has demonstrated that it can penetrate Isfahan's air defenses. Many were located around important locations, such as the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan.
The 25-year-old facility, which is relatively vulnerable to strikes, is a major production line for converting Iran's large stockpiles of natural uranium into gas (called UF6), which is It can be fed into a centrifuge to produce nuclear fuel for or for power generation. nuclear weapons.
Israeli warplanes also fired missiles at Iran in the attack, suggesting more sophisticated firepower was involved than initial reports indicated.
It was not immediately clear what type of missile was used, where it came from, whether it was intercepted by Iranian defenses, or where it landed. But just as drones launched from beneath Iran sent a message about Israel's capabilities, so too did guided missiles from Israeli fighter jets.
A senior U.S. official said Friday, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a classified intelligence assessment, that Israel notified the U.S. through multiple channels shortly before the attack. But unlike the warning Israel gave the regime just before fighter jets attacked the Iranian embassy in Damascus on April 1, the official said, given all the warnings Israel issued that week, this time said the attack was not unexpected.
“While there has been no official claim of responsibility for the overnight attack on a military base in Isfahan, the message is clear: Iranian attempts to unilaterally shift the goalposts of the regional war will be met with silence and inaction. No,” he said. Dana Stroll is the former head of Middle East policy at the Pentagon and currently works at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “We will definitely counter any state-on-state attacks using drones or missiles,” she said.
“But last night's strike was precise and limited,” Stroll added. “The message is that Iran's air defenses are completely impenetrable and that the Iranian military is unable to protect its military bases from outside attacks. But the damage was limited. This escalation cycle may end if it determines that it is not worth the risk of further escalation to carry out more deadly and costly attacks on its territory.
Long-term effects are even harder to predict. Vali Nasr, an Iran expert and former dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, recently said that Iran is likely determined to move its weapons “closer to Israel” and has not openly pursued nuclear development. He said the country could face new pressure domestically to pursue the move. Deterrent power.
Iran has banned some, but not all, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world's nuclear watchdog, from entering the country. They enriched uranium to 60 percent purity, achieving bomb-grade quality in just a few days or weeks. And last weekend, at the height of the conflict with Israel, some senior commanders spoke publicly about reconsidering Iran's official position that it would never seek weapons.
Julian E. Burns Contributed to the report.