Alexander Palmer, Daniel Byman, Seth G. Jones, and Joseph S. Bermudez Jr.
The dangerous back-and-forth between Israel and Iran appeared to end—at least for now—on April 19 when Israel destroyed part of an S-300 long-range air defense system in Isfahan, Iran. Based on the authors’ analysis of the attack, Israel walked a tightrope between escalating the conflict further and inaction, while also signaling to Tehran that it could conduct precision strikes against strategic locations—such as Iran’s Natanz nuclear enrichment facility and its broader air defense system.
An Israeli attack on a diplomatic facility in Damascus that killed seven Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officers on April 1 triggered the crisis. Iranian leaders probably felt the need to show their domestic population and elites that the country could not be attacked with impunity. Iran responded with a barrage of more than 300 missiles and drones on April 13, the first direct attack ever launched against Israel from Iranian soil.
Given the scale and unprecedented nature of Iran’s attack, the Israeli response seems small. But the April 19 attack is best understood as a calibrated attempt to deter Iran while avoiding escalation. Israel’s response carried a clear threat against Iran’s most sensitive political and military targets, particularly its nuclear infrastructure, while avoiding key triggers for further escalation. The design of the strike suggests that Israel wants to avoid war with Iran, just as Iran is signaling that it does not seek war with Israel.
No comments:
Post a Comment