Middle EastAnalysis

Oil and nuclear facilities considered as Israel prepares its response to Iran’s attack

Israeli jets unlikely to be able to destroy all Iranian centrifuges, but enough damage may be inflicted to set back Tehran’s nuclear project by years

People look at the wreckage of an Iranian ballistic missile outside the city of Arad, southern Israel. Photograph: Abir Sultan/EPA
Mark Weiss's picture
Mark Weiss in Jerusalem
Wed Oct 02 2024 - 14:41

Iran’s unprecedented attack on Israel on Tuesday night, during which the military says 181 ballistic missiles were launched, was considered a declaration of war by Israel and there is no question that it will respond forcefully. The response may be delayed until after the Jewish new year – which is celebrated on Thursday and Friday – but even that is uncertain.

The relatively limited damage caused by the missile attack, which it appears was primarily aimed at air force and intelligence bases, will allow Israel to respond without constraints.

In an address to the Israeli security cabinet following the attack, prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Tehran made a “big mistake” and “will pay for it”.

Coalition and opposition lawmakers clamoured for a tough response.

READ MORE

Culture minister Miki Zohar said on X: “The Iranian supreme leader, who made the most wrong decision in his life, will pay a very heavy price. This is the beginning of the end of the damned Iranian regime.”

Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Strength) lawmaker, Almog Cohen, said “Iran has declared war on the state of Israel. These foolish actions will open the gates of hell for them.”

Opposition leaders were no less militant in their response.

Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beiteinu party and a former defence minister, called for an immediate strike on Iran, urging Israel to “bomb all the oil, gas and nuclear facilities and destroy the refineries and dams.”

“It’s either us or them,” he added.

Benny Gantz, head of the National Unity party, wrote on X: “Iran crossed a red line again. Israel has capabilities that have been developed over the years to strike at Iran, and the government has our full backing to act with strength and determination.”

In response to the previous attack by Iran in April, when more than 300 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and attack drones were launched, Israel responded with a missile strike close to an Iranian nuclear facility. The reaction, described by one minister as “feeble”, was seen as a warning. This time the response will be on an entirely different level.

There was speculation that Kharg Island, the principal sea terminal for Iranian oil exports, would be among the targets, and Iranian nuclear facilities may also be in Israel’s sights.

Hizbullah, and to a lesser degree Hamas, were painstakingly built up by Iran for decades as an insurance policy to deter Israel from attacking Tehran’s nuclear project. Now, with both organisations at their weakest point ever, the option of a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities is reportedly under discussion by Israeli decision-makers, who believe Iran is already a nuclear threshold state.

Those who advocate such a response argue that Tuesday’s Iranian missile attack has granted Israel the legitimacy it needs. Some of Iran’s nuclear facilities are deep underground and Israeli jets will probably be unable to destroy all the Iranian centrifuges, but enough damage may be inflicted to set back Tehran’s nuclear project by years.

Journalist Thomas Friedman, considered close to White House circles, wrote in a recent New York Times column that the Biden administration fears that Netanyahu is trying to drag it into a direct war with Iran that would include attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities and, in the process, would also affect the outcome of the November election.

[ Middle East crisis feeds into Trump’s foreign policy narrative ]

The United States will co-ordinate with Israel and may participate in the military response, but both Biden and Kamala Harris will be reluctant to give the green light to any action that could jeopardise the chances of a Democratic presidential victory.