Israel abandoned plans for a much broader counterstrike against Iran after diplomatic pressure from the United States and other foreign allies and because the brunt of an Iranian attack on Israeli soil had been thwarted, according to three senior Israeli officials.
Israeli leaders initially discussed bombing several military targets across Iran, including near the Iranian capital Tehran, in retaliation for Iran’s attack on April 13 last week, officials briefed on the discussion said spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the sensitive discussions.
Such a comprehensive and devastating attack would have been far harder for Iran to miss and would have increased the likelihood of a violent Iranian counterattack that could have brought the Middle East to the brink of a major regional conflict.
In the end – after President Biden, along with British and German foreign ministers, called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to prevent a larger war – Israel opted for a more limited attack on Friday that avoided significant damage and reduced the likelihood of escalation, at least for now.
According to Israeli officials, the attack nevertheless showed Iran the breadth and complexity of Israel’s military arsenal.
Instead of sending warplanes into Iranian airspace, Israel fired a small number of missiles on Friday from planes based several hundred miles west, according to Israeli officials and two senior Western officials briefed on the attack. Israel also sent small attack drones called quadcopters to confound Iran’s air defenses, according to Israeli officials.
Military facilities in Iran have been attacked by such drones several times in recent years, and Iran has repeatedly said it does not know who the drones belonged to – a claim interpreted as Iranian reluctance to respond.
One missile hit an anti-aircraft battery in a strategic part of central Iran on Friday, while another exploded in midair, the officials said. An Israeli official said the Israeli Air Force deliberately destroyed the second missile when it became clear that the first had reached its target so as not to cause too much damage. A Western official said it was possible the missile had simply malfunctioned.
The officials said Israel’s intention was to allow Iran to move on without a corresponding response, while signaling that Israel had developed the ability to attack Iran without entering its airspace or even setting off its air defense batteries. Israel also hoped to show that it could hit those batteries in a part of central Iran that hosts several large nuclear facilities, including a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, and suggested that it could have reached those facilities if it had tried.
The Israeli military declined to comment.
The path to this attack began on April 1, when Israel bombed an Iranian embassy complex in Damascus, Syria, killing seven Iranian officials, including three senior military leaders. Iran did not retaliate after several similar attacks in the past, leading Israeli officials to believe they could continue to carry out such attacks without provoking a significant Iranian response.
This time it was different: Within a week, Iran began privately signaling to neighbors and foreign diplomats that its patience was running out and that it would respond with a major strike against Israel – the first direct attack ever on Israeli soil.
According to Israeli officials, Israel began preparing two major military responses during the week of April 8.
The first was a defensive operation to deter the expected Iranian attack, coordinated with U.S. Central Command – its commander-in-chief, Gen. Michael E. Kurilla, visited Israel this week – as well as the British, French and Jordanian militaries.
The second was a massive offensive operation to be carried out if the Iranian attack materialized. Israeli intelligence initially believed Iran was planning an attack using a “swarm” of large drones and up to 10 ballistic missiles, Israeli officials said. Over the week, that estimate grew to 60 rockets, reinforcing Israel’s desire for a strong counterattack.
Israel’s military and political leaders began discussing a counterstrike that could begin as soon as Iran began firing the drones – before it was known how much damage, if any, they caused. According to an official, the plan was presented to Israel’s War Cabinet by the military’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, and its air force chief, Tomer Bar, early on Friday, April 12 – two days before the Iranian attack.
Israel’s intentions changed after Iran’s attack, the officials said. The attack was even larger than expected: with more than 100 ballistic missiles, 170 drones and around 30 cruise missiles, it was one of the largest barrage attacks of its kind in military history.
But Israeli defenses, coordinated with pilots from the United States, Britain, France and Jordan, were able to shoot down most of the missiles and drones, and there was limited damage on the ground, reducing the need for a quick response. And there were questions about whether Israel should risk diverting its focus from defense while the attack was still underway. two officials said.
But the turning point was an early morning phone call between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mr. Biden, in which the American president encouraged the Israeli leader to view the successful defense as a victory that requires no further response, according to three Israeli and Western officials who attended those discussions on condition of anonymity. Mr. Netanyahu rejected the call for immediate retaliation, the Israelis said.
The next day, the Israeli government began signaling to foreign allies that it still planned to respond, but only in a limited way that fell far short of what it had previously planned, according to one of the senior Western officials.
Instead of an all-out counterattack that could leave Iran’s leaders believing they had no choice but to respond in kind, Israeli officials said, they agreed on a plan that they hoped would make something clear to Iranian officials, without publicly humiliating them.
They had originally planned the attack for Monday evening, Israeli officials said, and withdrew at the last minute over fears that Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militia that has been embroiled in a low-level conflict with Israel since October, The attacks could significantly increase the intensity of its attacks on northern Israel.
According to an Israeli and a Western official, foreign officials continued unsuccessfully encouraging Israel not to respond at all and then signaled their willingness to accept an Israeli attack that would allow Iran to move forward without losing face.
After Israel finally carried out its strike early Friday morning, Iranian officials did just that — focusing on the small drones instead of the missiles and ignoring their impact.
Officials in Tehran also largely avoided blaming Israel for the attack. This, coupled with Israel’s decision not to accept responsibility, helped reduce the risk of escalation.
Eric Schmitt and Farnaz Fassihi contributed reporting.
Source link
2024-04-22 04:01:28
www.nytimes.com
