There are three ways Israel could react to Iran’s strike — here’s how it should decide between them
Israel could produce a measured response — or risk World War III
An Israeli shows the Tzofar incoming rocket alert app on their phone amid an Iranian missile attack on Tuesday. Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images
Columnist Dan Perry October 1, 2024
Tuesday’s Iranian missile strike on Israel may mark a critical juncture, not just in Israel’s nearly year-long war against Hamas, Hezbollah and other Iranian proxy groups, but also in the strategic equation of the Middle East at large.
In its wake, there are scenarios — perhaps not probable, but far from implausible — that risk taking us closer to World War III than ever before.
I was appearing on the air with the multilingual Israeli news station I24 when the missiles were launched. My panel and I decided to continue broadcasting from the station’s studios in Jaffa, even as the control room and all support staff evacuated to a secure area. Booms began to be heard overhead — which we now know were mostly missiles being intercepted.
Although many of the people there were “battle hardened” journalists, the drama was rather extreme. Unlike Iran’s previous strike in April, this time the projectiles weren’t slow-moving drones, but high-speed ballistic missiles, capable of massive destruction.
It’s a mercy that only one casualty has been reported — a Palestinian in the West Bank. Basically everyone was in shelters, and Israel’s air defenses continue to prove themselves to be the gold standard (especially with major assists from the U.S. and some regional allies).
Yet there is still the sense that a Rubicon has been crossed — that this strike fundamentally changes things.
A year after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, with the missile strike serving almost as an anniversary punctuation, there is a sense that Israel may have finally lost all patience with the so-called “circle of fire” Iran has established around it — proxy groups including Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis. Israel’s response to this latest provocation — and the world’s reaction to it — could very well redefine the strategic order of the Middle East.
So how, exactly, might Israel retaliate?
At its core, Israel now views the presence of Iran’s proxies on its borders, and the broader involvement of Tehran in the Palestinian conflict, as unacceptable. Especially noxious is Hezbollah’s presence on its northern border, occasionally firing rockets, digging tunnels, and plotting Oct. 7-style ground invasions. Israel has already assassinated most of the Hezbollah leadership, including its chief, Hassan Nasrallah, and has this week launched a limited ground invasion.
Israel’s goal, now, is not just to repel the immediate threat, but to alter the strategic equation in the region by neutralizing Iran’s entire chaos project.
Given the scale of the Iranian provocation, Israel now faces three possible courses of action:
- A pro forma response: In this scenario, Israel would respond to Iran’s ballistic missile strike, but only symbolically. Its calculation in taking this path would factor in that no Israeli lives were lost in this strike, and that Iran telegraphed the attack with warnings to Russia and the U.S.
A limited, low-risk response might satisfy some of Israel’s immediate security concerns, but it would do little to deter Iran or disrupt its larger strategic ambitions. This is the path of least resistance, but it is unlikely to alter the status quo. For Israel, that might not be enough anymore.
- A tactical strike on Iran: A more substantial response could involve direct military action against Iranian assets, such as oil facilities or military installations. This would aim to inflict real damage on Iran’s infrastructure, forcing it to reconsider further provocations.
An attack on an oil installation, for instance, could disrupt Iran’s economic lifelines and send the clear message that Israel will not tolerate continued missile strikes. The goal here would be to create enough pain for Iran to deter future actions, without pushing the region into a full-scale war.
- A strategic overhaul of the region’s balance of power: The third option is far more ambitious, and fraught with risk, but could reshape the Middle East. It would involve Israel somehow pushing the West to lay down the law with Iran, demanding not just an end to its missile strikes, but a full dismantling of its nuclear program and an end to its sponsorship of proxy forces across the region.
In this scenario, Israel — or preferably, from its perspective, the U.S. and other Western allies— could blockade Iranian ports, destroy key oil facilities, and even employ bunker-busting bombs to cripple Iran’s nuclear capabilities. This might also involve providing significant backing to Iranian opposition groups, further destabilizing the regime in Tehran. The overarching goal would be to not just contain Iran, but to bring about regime change, or at least more fully neutralize its ambitions.
The likelihood of Israel opting for that third path may depend on the broader geopolitical landscape. Any aggressive Israeli action against Iran carries risks far beyond the Middle East, and could provoke a massive retaliation from Tehran.
This is where the World War III scenario — which sounds like hyperbole but is not — comes into play.
If Iran responds forcefully, the U.S. would almost certainly be drawn into the conflict to protect Israel. This could trigger a chain reaction, with Russia and China, both of whom have strategic relationships with Iran, seeing an opportunity to exploit the chaos. China could use the distraction to finally make a long-threatened move on Taiwan, while Russian President Vladimir Putin might take the opportunity to expand his war in Ukraine, or press into neighboring countries.
The global balance of power would be thrown into disarray, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
We’re not likely to know how it will play out until after the U.S. presidential election. Israel understands that any major military action before then would be unlikely to win the support of Joe Biden’s administration, which has thrown its weight behind Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy. Michigan and other swing states with significant Muslim populations could sway the election, and the Democrats cannot afford to alienate these voters by being drawn into a new Middle Eastern conflict.
But once the election is over, the political calculus changes. If the Democrats secure their position, Biden — or whomever holds office after him — will have more freedom to support Israeli actions against Iran. This makes the post-election period a critical window for Israel to act decisively.
Israel has already said it will respond forcefully to today’s attack. The degree of that force could change the already fragile world order. And the decisions made in the coming months could either stabilize the Middle East or plunge it into greater turmoil, with global consequences that could spiral out of control.
A message from our CEO & publisher Rachel Fishman Feddersen
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.
We’ve set a goal to raise $260,000 by December 31. That’s an ambitious goal, but one that will give us the resources we need to invest in the high quality news, opinion, analysis and cultural coverage that isn’t available anywhere else.
If you feel inspired to make an impact, now is the time to give something back. Join us as a member at your most generous level.
— Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO
