‘Calculated Moves on Both Sides’: How Washington Manages Tensions Between ‘Israel’ and Iran

The Israeli Occupation’s expected response to Iran fell short of the military scale Tehran had anticipated, underscoring the “success” of U.S. pressure in shaping the attack's scope and impact.

Early on October 26, 2024, “Israel” carried out a broad strike on Iranian military targets, including missile production facilities. According to Tehran, the attack resulted in two military fatalities and “limited damage.”

Iranian Attack

Following the Israeli strike, Iran asserted its “right and duty to self-defense” under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

This Israeli targeting came in response to Iran’s ballistic missile attack on occupied Palestinian territories on October 1, 2024. It marked the second Iranian attack on “Israel,” following a previous assault with around 300 rockets on April 13 of the same year.

The Israeli War Forces announced the conclusion of their airstrikes on military targets in Iran, stating, “Israeli retaliatory strikes against Iran ‘completed.’” The Israeli Occupation forces specified that Israeli aircraft targeted facilities where missiles used against Israel were manufactured.

The strikes also reportedly hit Iranian surface-to-air missile systems and other aerial capabilities intended to limit Israeli Occupation’s freedom of aerial operations over Iran.

“If the regime in Iran makes the mistake of initiating a new round of escalation, we will be obligated to respond,” warned Israeli army spokesperson Daniel Hagari. He asserted that “Israel” now enjoys greater operational flexibility in Iranian airspace, noting that dozens of Israeli aircraft—including fighter jets, refueling tankers, and surveillance planes—participated in the complex mission approximately 1,600 kilometers from “Israel.”

Meanwhile, Iranian state television reported explosions near Tehran, attributing them to the activation of the country's “air defense systems” against the Israeli attack. 

“Six loud explosions heard around Tehran were linked to air defense activation in response to the Israeli Occupation’s attack on three sites near the capital,” the broadcaster stated.

The Iranian Air Defense Forces said “Israel” had targeted military facilities in the provinces of Tehran, Khuzestan (in the southwest), and Ilam (near the Iraqi border), describing it as a “tension-escalating move.”

Following the attacks, Iran announced it had successfully repelled the Israeli assault, noting that only “limited damage” had been inflicted on military sites across the country.

De-escalation Efforts

The United States promptly urged Iran to halt its attacks on “Israel” to stop the tit-for-tat cycle, framing the Israeli strikes as “self-defense.”

“Our goal is to accelerate diplomacy and de-escalate tensions in the Middle East,” said National Security Council spokesman Sean Savitt. “We urge Iran to cease its attacks on Israel so that this cycle of fighting can end without further escalation.”

Savitt highlighted that the Israeli response was “self-defense,” deliberately avoiding populated areas and focusing solely on military targets. The strikes on Iran, described as “precise and targeted,” showcased a high level of coordination with U.S. red lines to prevent broader escalation, even as Tehran reiterated its stance against a full-scale war, though it vowed to respond if attacked.

During a visit to Berlin on October 25, 2024, President Joe Biden noted his awareness of the Israeli Occupation’s planned response to Iran’s October missile strikes. Israeli media shared images of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, War Minister Yoav Gallant, and other officials in the underground operations room at the Israeli military headquarters in Tel Aviv during “the operation.”

According to Axios, the first wave of strikes targeted Iranian air defense systems, while subsequent waves hit the missile, drone bases, and weapons production sites. Security sources revealed that “Israel” had sent Iran a message via a third party before the strike, outlining the general locations of the attacks. 

Two sources indicated “Israel” warned Iran not to retaliate, threatening a “more significant strike” if Iran responded, particularly if Israeli civilians were harmed.

It was reported that Dutch Foreign Minister Casper Veldkamp acted as a conduit for these messages, having communicated on X hours before the strike about his discussion with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi concerning the war and increasing regional tensions. He emphasized the need for restraint and urged that all parties work to prevent further escalation.

According to Axios, U.S. officials anticipate a limited response from Iran in the coming days, which could allow “Israel” to avoid further cycles of retaliation.

Some analysts believe that the Israeli Occupation aims to manage Iran while aligning with the U.S. calls for a restrained response, perhaps as a nod to the outgoing Biden administration’s approach. Israeli projections had initially considered targeting oil or nuclear facilities in Iran, which holds the world’s third-largest oil reserves, raising concerns over oil price spikes. 

Accordingly, Biden urged “Israel” not to target Iranian energy facilities—a move that experts believe signals Washington's success in reshaping “Tel Aviv’s” planned target maps for strikes on Tehran.

Response Management

In this context, Iranian affairs analyst Ammar Jello emphasized that “the United States has managed to regulate Israel's response to the Iranian missile attack on its territory in early October 2024. This stems from a fundamental reason—not just a temporary one—aimed at preventing the region from descending into a large-scale war that would inevitably draw Washington in.”

“This reason is also tied to another matter: the presidential legacy of Joe Biden and his administration. It reflects a desire to avoid leaving the White House and political office amid an inflamed situation and a raging war,” Jello told Al-Estiklal.

“An open war between Israel and Iran would obliterate any future chances for American-Iranian understandings or agreements regarding the nuclear program and other issues, given the likelihood of U.S. involvement in the conflict.”

“There is also a temporary reason: the impact of the current expansion of the conflict on the election prospects of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris,” he added, suggesting that an escalation could lead to a direct war between “Israel” and Iran, diminishing Harris’s chances while benefiting Republican candidate Donald Trump.

“Israel had previously raised the stakes regarding potential targets, both in media discourse and rhetoric, not excluding any targets, including oil and nuclear sites. Israel is aware of its inability to strike these alone as a bargaining chip with Washington to secure current demands and possibly future promises, which has largely been achieved.”

Against this backdrop, there are signs that “Israel” is retreating from launching a wider strike against Iran, as previously expected, following recommendations from Washington.

This “limited military response” angered Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, who stated, “The decision not to attack strategic and economic targets in Iran was wrong. Iran should have paid a much heavier price.”

Political journalist Mohammed al-Satouhi noted that the Israeli attack on Iran was “consistent with the red lines set by the U.S. administration for the Israeli government, not just in terms of targets but also in the scale and intensity of the strikes.”

He mentioned in a television statement that “Israel backed down from targeting nuclear sites under clear American pressure. However, if it targets ballistic missiles, it would likely be a result of U.S.-Israeli coordination aimed at limiting Iran’s capabilities to use and deliver nuclear explosives, even if produced.”

In “Israel,” there are those who see the Iranian attacks in the context of American regulation, recognizing a clear political decision not to target strategic facilities in Iran.

Israeli politician and leader of the Democrats party Yair Golan praised the restraint shown by the Israeli government, attributing it either to American pressure or to rational voices within the army. 

“It seems there is a significant chance that the Israeli response could damage Iran’s defensive and offensive capabilities without dragging us into a specific war of attrition, which is not within the scope of Israeli security and national interests,” Golan posted on X.

He described the Israeli response as “a final act, not an opening one,” adding, “If this is indeed the case, the Israeli government can return to addressing issues it has been avoiding, including retrieving hostages held by Hamas.”

Meanwhile, Knesset member Tally Goltiv from the Likud Party criticized the attack, asserting, “Not striking Iran's nuclear facilities will be a cause for regret for generations. Not striking Iran's oil reserves is a grave mistake.”

“Unfortunately, this is submission to the Biden administration which doesn't think for a moment about Israel's interests,” she said.