How U.S. conditions for cooperation might shape Israel’s phased strikes on Iran, from airbases to nuclear sites along with the wild card of the US Presidential Race.
As Israel and Iran’s conflict escalates in mid-October 2024, Israel is considering a multi-phase military strategy to degrade Iranian military capabilities and economic power. With the United States already involved through missile defense systems and training, the conditions for further U.S. involvement hinge on how Israel manages its strikes and the risks of broader regional escalation. This article outlines Israel’s likely strike options, the potential for U.S. cooperation, and the strategic calculations behind each phase.
And all these considerations need to factor in a balancing act between working with the Biden Administration with the rising fortunes of the Trump campaign causing second thoughts in planning and especially timing.
First Round: Strikes on Airbases and Regime Targets
Israel’s first step in any military escalation would likely focus on Iranian airbases, missile launch sites, and regime command centers. By targeting these critical military installations, Israel aims to reduce Iran’s ability to launch coordinated missile strikes and weaken its leadership’s control over military assets. In particular, airbases that house Iranian drones and missile systems would be key priorities. Hitting these targets first would allow Israel to degrade Iran’s immediate retaliatory capacity while minimizing collateral damage, keeping civilian casualties and infrastructure out of the early rounds of conflict.
This phase could also involve targeted strikes on symbols of the Iranian regime’s power, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) headquarters or other high-profile military and governmental centers. Such attacks would signal to Tehran that Israel is prepared to escalate and is willing to hit critical regime assets if necessary.
The United States is likely to support this limited first round of strikes, as it aligns with Washington’s interest in containing Iranian military power while avoiding broader regional escalation. U.S. forces, already operating THAAD missile defense systems and stationed at key locations in Israel, would likely play a defensive role, protecting Israeli cities from any retaliatory missile strikes launched by Iran or its proxies, including Hezbollah.
Conditions for U.S. Support in First Round:
- Military-focused targets: The U.S. would be inclined to support Israeli strikes focused on military infrastructure rather than civilian or nuclear facilities, aiming to degrade Iran’s military capabilities without provoking a full-scale regional war.
- Defensive posture: U.S. forces would remain primarily in a defensive capacity, focusing on missile interception and intelligence sharing, allowing Israel to take the lead in offensive operations.
Second Round: Strikes on Oil Infrastructure
In the second phase of Israel’s campaign, the focus would shift to Iran’s oil infrastructure, including refineries, pipelines, and export terminals. This phase aims to cripple Iran’s economic lifelines, reducing its ability to finance regional militias like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iraqi militias. Striking oil infrastructure would weaken Tehran’s financial footing and its capacity to sustain long-term military operations across the Middle East.
However, this step carries risks. Destroying Iran’s oil production would not only hurt its economy but could also destabilize global oil markets, drawing in other international actors such as Russia and China, who have significant interests in Iranian energy. The U.S., while committed to supporting Israel’s defense, may hesitate to endorse such a broad economic strike due to its global implications, particularly if it provokes more aggressive Iranian retaliation.
Conditions for U.S. Cooperation in Second Round:
- Global economic stability: The U.S. would likely push Israel to limit the scope of strikes on oil infrastructure, balancing the goal of crippling Iran’s military funding with the need to maintain stability in global energy markets.
- Broader diplomatic efforts: Washington may use this phase to engage in diplomatic efforts with other global powers, including Russia and China, to avoid turning the conflict into a larger international crisis.
Final Round: Striking Nuclear Facilities
The most critical and high-stakes phase of Israel’s strike plan would involve direct attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, including the Natanz and Fordow enrichment centers. These sites are heavily fortified and protected by advanced air defense systems, some supplied by Russia, and represent the core of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A successful strike on these facilities would significantly delay or destroy Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons.
However, this phase carries the greatest risk of triggering a massive retaliation from Iran, including widespread missile strikes on Israeli cities, military bases, and infrastructure. Iran’s proxies, such as Hezbollah, possess over 100,000 rockets and could open up multiple fronts, bombarding Israel from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and even Yemen. Israel’s Iron Dome and David’s Sling missile defense systems could be overwhelmed by a sustained barrage of thousands of rockets, raising the stakes for both Israel and the United States.
Conditions for U.S. Support in Final Round:
- Nuclear threat assessment: The Biden Administration would likely demand conclusive intelligence that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons before endorsing strikes on nuclear facilities. Washington’s primary concern is preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, but the risks of such an escalation would need to be carefully weighed. Trump may be more receptive.
- Regional repercussions: The Biden Administration would seek to mitigate the risk of a multi-front war, where Hezbollah, Syrian forces, and Iraqi militias actively join the conflict, potentially turning it into a regional conflagration. Again, Trump may be less hesitant to take on the axis of evil to deal with the threat quickly.
- Escalation management: Any U.S. cooperation in a final round of strikes would likely be tied to detailed planning on how to manage the aftermath, including missile defense, humanitarian fallout, and diplomatic coordination with other global powers. And it will be tied to the identity of the American Commander in Chief.
The Role of Cyberattacks and Sabotage
Beyond conventional airstrikes, Israel is expected to use cyber warfare and covert sabotage to weaken Iran’s military capabilities and infrastructure. Israeli intelligence units, such as Unit 8200, could launch cyberattacks to disrupt Iranian missile systems, air defenses, and communication networks ahead of any physical strikes. Such actions would soften Iran’s defenses, making it easier for Israel to carry out precision strikes with reduced risk of immediate retaliation.
In addition, covert operations, including the use of explosive devices at key military facilities of Hezbollah style personal communications units, could further destabilize Iranian military operations. These tactics would likely precede or accompany airstrikes, creating confusion and disarray within Iranian ranks.
Advantages of Cyberattacks and Sabotage:
- Reduced visibility: Cyber operations allow Israel to degrade Iranian defenses without the immediate visibility of airstrikes, potentially delaying or softening Iranian retaliation.
- Targeted impact: Covert sabotage of critical military assets can achieve significant damage with minimal risk, leveraging Israel’s intelligence network inside Iran.
Conclusion: Strategic Calculations for Israel and the U.S.
Israel’s approach to dealing with Iran’s military and nuclear threat will involve a carefully calculated multi-phase operation, balancing immediate security needs with the risk of triggering broader regional conflict. The United States, already deeply involved in Israel’s defense through missile defense systems and intelligence sharing, will likely support limited military actions but will push for restraint in the early rounds, especially when it comes to strikes on Iran’s oil infrastructure and nuclear facilities.
As both nations prepare for the possibility of further escalation, the success of Israel’s strategy will depend not only on its military capabilities but also on its ability to manage U.S. involvement and global diplomatic reactions. A measured, phased approach, beginning with military targets and moving to more sensitive economic and nuclear sites, may allow Israel to degrade Iran’s capabilities while maintaining essential U.S. support and avoiding a broader regional war.
0 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks