لحظة ادراك

The Hourglass of the Election Race Sets the Tempo for Israel’s Response

In remarks attributed to Yoav Gallant, Israel’s Defense Minister, regarding Israel’s response to the missiles launched by Iran earlier this month, he asserted, "The world will witness the might of Israel’s retaliation against Iran, a response that will be lethal and deadly—the enemy will only see the results, not know how it happened."

However, the actual strike, carried out early on Saturday, October 26, was far from Gallant’s declaration: it lacked the expected deadly force and failed to surprise the adversary, who was already aware of its occurrence. This phase in the conflict between Iran’s axis of resistance and Israel’s government reveals the intricacies behind the design of the strike. Clearly, this was not crafted by Israel’s Defense Ministry, as Gallant’s words did not align with reality. Instead, Israel’s Defense Ministry received it as an executable plan from the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. National Security advisors. The strike indeed targeted certain Iranian missile programs and air defense platforms while avoiding nuclear sites and oil and gas infrastructures—the lifeline of Iran’s activities in the region and its Revolutionary Guard. The strike was executed with minimal media coverage, devoid of dramatic visuals or widespread destruction, leaving both Iranian and Israeli analysts perplexed.

How did the Biden administration manage to convince Benjamin Netanyahu, who leads a far-right government and commands a hawkish military, to adopt such an unexpected approach, especially when the administration has often failed to influence other areas of the ongoing Gaza conflict? Moreover, how did the U.S. effectively communicate to Iran the rationale behind a restrained response, adopting a "no victor, no vanquished" stance?

This engineered response, which Netanyahu seemingly accepted, aligns with the following contextual constraints:

Israel’s Limited Solo Capacity: Israel’s air force alone, without the safe air corridors, specialized munitions, or refueling support that the U.S. provides, lacks the capability to conduct a comprehensive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Simultaneous Fronts: Open conflicts in Gaza and southern Lebanon prevent Netanyahu from engaging Iran directly, which would require extensive resources—an impractical endeavor when the other fronts remain active.
Iran’s Shifting Strategy: Both U.S. and Israeli intelligence recognize Iran’s new leadership, under Masoud Bazkashian, is subtly recalibrating its regional posture and reconsidering the strategic value of its alliances, especially after facing numerous sanctions and domestic pressures under previous policies.
Compensatory Factors for Israel: As compensation, the U.S. has bolstered Israel’s defenses with the THAAD system, permitting greater latitude on the Gaza and Lebanon fronts and allowing Israel more strategic flexibility.
U.S. Election Calculations: Netanyahu is mindful that his preferred candidate, Donald Trump, may not secure the White House. Launching a large-scale assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities before the U.S. election could alienate the current administration and affect Israel’s relationship with a future administration, particularly if Kamala Harris wins.

As for the U.S. communication to Iran, it is evident:

Iran’s Waning Influence: Iran is aware that its influence, specifically through Hezbollah and Hamas, is diminishing, as Israel actively undermines these key allies. Israel’s recent breaches of Iranian air defenses reinforce this point, signaling the futility of Iran’s defensive strategies.
A Cautious Concession: The Biden administration conveyed to Iran that the Israeli response would avoid critical targets, like the nuclear program and economic sectors, offering Iran a choice to deescalate and perhaps open new diplomatic channels in the future.
Iran’s Strategic Restraint: Iran understands that a retaliatory strike could provoke a harsher response, as the U.S. may not exercise the same restraint in future engagements.
Potential Political Benefits for Iran: Absorbing the strike without responding could help stabilize the political situations in Lebanon and Gaza, allowing Iran’s allies to regroup after substantial losses.
Impact on the U.S. Election: Iran is cautious about giving Trump any political leverage for his campaign. Actions by Trump—such as exiting the nuclear deal, assassinating Qassem Soleimani, and re-imposing severe sanctions—remain sore points in Iran’s memory.

The common denominator in the design of this strike was the U.S. election. The Biden administration needs a de-escalated Middle East in these final months, while Israel, given its constraints, must adapt to this necessity, and Iran carefully navigates this reality. Thus, the U.S. election race’s hourglass has set the rhythm for Israel’s response.