Reasons for Israel's Delayed Response to Iran

Amid the delayed Israeli response to Iranian missile attacks, questions have emerged about how the strike by Lebanon's Hezbollah on the Israeli military base in Binyamina might have influenced the nature and timing of the Israeli Occupation’s reaction to the shelling from Tehran that occurred in early October 2024.

On October 13, Israeli Army Radio reported that four individuals were killed, and 67 others injured—seven of them critically—in a drone attack launched by Hezbollah on a Golani Brigade training camp in Binyamina, south of Haifa. The militant group has since vowed to carry out further strikes against “Israel”.

Iran fired nearly 200 ballistic missiles at “Israel” on September 31 in retaliation for the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh. In response, Israeli officials pledged "will be lethal, precise, and especially surprising” military retaliation.

Israeli Shock

In the wake of Hezbollah's strike on the Israeli military base in Binyamina, questions loom about its potential impact on the Israeli Occupation’s response to Iran. 

Lebanese political analyst Hakam Amhaz characterized the attack as a significant shift in the dynamics of the conflict, creating a jarring realization among Israelis that they remain vulnerable despite their perceived strength and capabilities.

In a television interview on October 13, Amhaz suggested that this development would have repercussions for any future confrontations involving “Israel” in the region. 

He posed a question: if Iran intervenes and begins launching missiles while facing simultaneous assaults from Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and even Syria, what will the Israeli landscape look like?

Amhaz pointed out that a fondness for Tehran does not drive recent U.S. engagement with “Israel” regarding its approach to Iran, but rather an understanding that escalating the conflict with Iran would likely provoke a formidable response, especially if Iranian nuclear and critical infrastructure is targeted—a scenario that the U.S. is taking seriously.

Conversely, Middle East political researcher Luay al-Azzawi contended that “Israel”'s ambitions extend to Lebanon and its allies, including Iranian-backed regimes and armed groups. He posited that Hezbollah's strike offers “Israel” both a justification and a catalyst for escalating its attacks against these groups.

Al-Azzawi explained to El-Estiklal “Israel's delayed response to Iran and linked it to two reasons: firstly, due to the significant aerial distance involved, coupled with the fact that “Israel” is currently focused on reducing Iranian influence in Arab nations.”

According to him, “Israel” requires American aerial refueling capabilities to carry out operations, as its aircraft would need to traverse the airspace of both Jordan and Iraq. 

Presently, the U.S. is leveraging this necessity, as Washington is cautious about allowing “Tel Aviv” to strike Tehran directly for fear of drawing the region into a broader conflict.

Moreover, al-Azzawi noted “Israel”’s lack of strategic bombers due to the absence of a dedicated airport for such operations, making U.S. airpower essential for any forthcoming Israeli aerial assaults.

The researcher also highlighted that targeting nuclear and oil facilities remains a key consideration for “Israel”, with reports suggesting an agreement between “Tel Aviv” and Washington to strike installations that do not pose a risk of contamination or disrupt enrichment processes.

Al-Azzawi anticipates Hezbollah’s future high-profile strikes similar to the one in Binyamina before “Israel” responds to Iran. 

He views Hezbollah as a critical frontline actor in this confrontation, emphasizing the necessity of exhausting Israeli resources before any broader conflict is considered.

Israeli Deception

A report released by the Hebrew newspaper Maariv and translated to Arabic by the Arabi21 website showed how “Israel” lacked a coherent strategy for responding to the Iranian missile barrage.

The report stated that “day after day, the media repeats the message that Israel will attack Iran in the coming hours,” adding, “In the middle of this week, it seemed as if Israel did not have an actual plan on how to retaliate.”

With each passing day, the rhetoric intensified, and the public has come to interpret these threats as indications that the response could involve more than 83 bunker-busting bombs, each weighing a ton, with speculation swirling that the weaponry might be nuclear rather than conventional.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared on the same evening, asserting that a forceful response to Iran was forthcoming, as an American general arrived in “Israel” for final coordination ahead of any potential strike.

The Hebrew newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported that executives from various government ministries have been warned that "Tel Aviv" is bracing for severe Iranian retaliation in response to its assaults. 

This alarming intelligence comes in the wake of “Israel” informing Washington that its strikes will specifically target Iranian military installations.

Further clarifying its stance, Israeli officials have communicated to the Biden administration that the focus of their attacks will be on sensitive military sites, explicitly avoiding oil or nuclear facilities. 

This strategic pivot suggests a calculated effort to mitigate broader regional repercussions while still responding decisively to perceived threats. As the situation evolves, the complexities of these military objectives raise questions about the overall effectiveness and coherence of the Israeli Occupation’s approach to Iran.

Four Reasons for Delay

In a revealing report, the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Jarida cited an unnamed source to outline the internal and external pressures delaying “Israel”’s military response to Iran. Four primary factors underscore the situation's complexities, suggesting a hesitant “Tel Aviv” grappling with the potential ramifications of its actions.

First, “Israel” finds itself ill-prepared for a significant Iranian counterstrike, especially given the current strain on its domestic front. The readiness of its defense infrastructure has come into question at a critical juncture.

Secondly, there is a troubling shortfall in air defenses. Reports indicate that the Iron Dome, designed to intercept short-range missiles, lacks sufficient munitions. 

Compounding this issue, “Israel”'s capabilities against medium- and long-range ballistic and cruise missiles remain inadequate, raising alarms about the effectiveness of its defense strategy.

The third point is the United States’ apparent reluctance to expedite the delivery of requested munitions and air defense systems. 

Despite assurances from the Pentagon, essential satellite-based air defenses are yet to be activated, and the much-anticipated Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), an American anti-ballistic missile defense system, remains absent from “Tel Aviv”.

Finally, “Israel”'s military, already stretched thin by ongoing operations in Gaza and incursions in southern Lebanon, lacks the readiness and capacity to engage in an expansive and potentially protracted regional conflict. 

This precarious situation is exacerbated by Prime Minister Netanyahu's calls for escalation against Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, seemingly at odds with military assessments regarding available resources.

As these dynamics unfold, the intersection of internal vulnerabilities and international pressures paints a complex picture of “Israel”'s strategic calculus in a rapidly evolving and fraught landscape.

Netanyahu has firmly asserted that the military is capable of striking any target, occasionally accusing its leadership of withholding critical information from him. 

This escalating tension reportedly prompted the chiefs of staff, along with the heads of Mossad and Shin Bet, to withdraw from a meeting with him and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant just days prior.

On October 11, the Washington Post cited an unnamed Israeli official who revealed that plans for a response to Iran are still in development, with the delay attributed to ongoing consultations with President Joe Biden's administration.

Simultaneously, unnamed U.S. officials conveyed to the newspaper that while the United States stands ready to assist “Israel” in "defending itself," it remains resolutely opposed to a direct military confrontation with Iran.