Iran’s limited options for retaliation amid calls to end counterattacks

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement Saturday that the Islamic Republic is "entitled and obligated to defend against foreign aggressive actions, based on the inherent right of self-defense” and that “It highlights the individual and collective responsibility of all countries in the region to safeguard peace and stability.”

“Zionists must receive a response right now even if they managed to land one American missile in Iran, even in an insignificant location. Speediness of Iran's reaction is a component of our strength and will cause disruption to the possible continuation of the attacks,” Abdollah Ganji, the former editor of the IRGC-linked Javan newspaper tweeted after the third wave of attacks.

“Why are you so eager to involve Iran in war? War will bring nothing other than destruction to you”, one response said. “Israel will respond again and so will Iran. How long should the cycle of retaliatory attacks continue?” Another message to Ganji said, “Don’t talk nonsense, those above you made a deal behind the scenes before [the attack to not respond]”.

“Sustainable security depends on [show of] strength and strong response to the enemy’s smallest blunder,” ultra-hardliner lawmaker Amir-Hossein Sabeti tweeted. “Violation of Iran's red line and invasion of the country’s territory must be answered at a surprising level to them. The best time for responding is when they are busy in a war of attrition in Gaza and Beirut,” he contended.

Most of the comments to his post disapproved of his call to continue the conflict. “Direct conflict with Israel will only expedite the Islamic Republic’s downfall from within”, one of the comments said.

Unlike Ganji and Sabeti, some politicians appeared to be advising an end to the conflict.

“Politically analyzed, [the limited scope/impact of] the attack means Washington and Tel Aviv are seeking deterrence and the end of the revenge cycle of war,” a former head of the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee, Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, tweeted. “Both war and diplomacy can be limited to Gaza and Lebanon now,” he added.

“The cycle [of revenge] will end when the child-killing Zionist regime is destroyed,” one of the comments to Falahatpisheh’s post read.

Many social media users contended in their posts that the Islamic Republic will downplay the impact of the Israeli air strikes even if important targets were destroyed while others warned against an Iranian response.

Esmail, a social media activist who describes himself as a barandaz (one who wants to overthrow the Islamic Republic), argued in his tweet that Iran is preparing the public opinion for not responding to Israel’s attack because all news channels of the state broadcaster are downplaying its impact.

“This means denial and preparation of [people’s] minds for not responding is on the agenda if … the level of [the impact] of the attack remains the same [as it appears now]. Israel is happy, the US is happy, the IRGC is happy [too]...,” he wrote.

“Netanyahu and his friends still have the upper hand. It is enough to publish images of the impact on the targets if they intend to [continue the] conflict but the Islamic Republic will declare victory with extensive propaganda if images are not released,” another post on X read.

Another netizen opined in a tweet that it will become clear if the Islamic Republic’s propaganda on the low impact/damage of the attack could work or not when more information becomes available. “Everything is ambiguous so far but apparently the dollar rate has gone down,” he wrote.

Iran's currency, the rial, regained some of its losses after the Israeli air strikes. The rial had fallen nearly 20% against the US dollar since August amid fears of a major military escalation with Israel.

It is bizarre and dangerous to downplay the attack on Iranian soil, Zeynab Karimian, a blogger, warned in a tweet. “Do admit that it is dangerous that [Israeli planes] easily reached the center of Tehran and left even if there were no casualties,” she added.

Speaking on the Eye for Iran podcast, Afshon Ostovar, an associate professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School and author of Wars of Ambition, said Iran pushed Israel to feel an existential threat. The interview was recorded before Israel's October 26 attack on Iran's missile sites.

"Israel sees this war post October 7th as an existential conflict. If you take Iran's leaders at their word, then this is exactly what they wanted," said Ostovar.

Ostovar emphasized that the Iranian government and IRGC must now confront the reality of provoking Israel, especially after Oct 7.

That perception of Iran by Israel will likely shape how the war is carried out, and it’s not going to be a one-time strike, but likely a long conflict carried out in stages.

Iran International first broke the story of a senior Israeli insider who gave a hint that Israel’s strike on Iran would signal ‘start of long war’. 

“This attack is just the beginning of a long war between Israel and Iran,” said Brigadier General (res.) Amir Avivi. “There will be a big attack, but one of many."

Avivi, a close friend and Caesarea neighbor of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is regularly consulted by key government ministers.

He had warned that Israel’s endgame was to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Ostovar said that as the war drags on, the risk of targeting nuclear facilities increases, potentially leading to radiation fallout. That could have long-term impacts for civilians.

"When you attack nuclear facilities, there's spillage, radiation escapes. You have a huge humanitarian crisis potentially on hand."

For decades Iran and Israel have engaged in a shadow war through proxies, sophisticated cyber-attacks, covert operations and exchanging threating war of words. Since its inception in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has said it would ‘wipe Israel off the wipe’. That is now seemingly starting to become a reality and if you take Iranian leaders by their word, then this is what they wanted and now they must face the consequences, said Ostovar.

Israel has covertly targeted military and nuclear facilities in Iran, killed scientists and commanders through alleged Mossad operations, but the reality of a direct and long-term war between the two enemies is a growing danger.

What is Iran capable of

But just how much force can Iran conduct? To answer that question, one must first determine what Iran's military capabilities are to understand how the war could be carried out. 

Since Iran’s air force is outdated, the only way it could conduct a war against Israel is either through missiles or drones.

Iran has proven that it can penetrate Israel air defense systems, but they have been largely ineffective in terms of the damage that their missiles can inflict.

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies ’annual assessment in 2023, the Iranian Armed forces are among the largest in the Middle East. At least 580,000 personal and about 200,000 trained reserves divided between the traditional conscripted army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

But it would be highly unlikely, said Ostovar, that this conflict would see armed personal getting involved since Iran and Israel don’t share a border, and that leaves missiles and drones as the only feasible means for war.

The accuracy of Iran’s long-vaunted missile program has been called into question. A recent report by experts shared exclusively with The Associated Press suggested one of the advanced missiles Tehran would use in any future attack against Israel is far less accurate than previously thought.

Analysts at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies examined the Iranian strike on the Nevatim Air Base 65 kilometers (40 miles) south of Jerusalem in the Negev Desert. They believe Iran used its Emad missile, and assuming the target was the Israeli F-35I fighter jet hangars, the James Martin analysts measured the distance between the hangars and the impact zones of the missiles. The study concluded an accuracy range of 1.2 kilometers, which is far less than what Iran claims.

Despite that, Ostovar said it can still have devastating impacts for Israeli citizens.

In Iran’s Oct 1 attack on Isarel, 181 ballistic missiles were fired, and 30 of them got through Israel’s air defense system.

If those missiles were to target civilians' populations instead of a military base in the middle of the desert, then those 30 missiles could cause real harm and damage to people, said Otsovar.

Farzin Nadimi, a Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute, specializing in the security and defense affairs of Iran and the greater region, spoke in a previous episode of Eye for Iran . Nadmi said Iran’s missiles have had failures of launching and crashing before their intended target, but other times it can be successful and deadly.

While Hamas has been decimated and Hezbollah has been severely weakened, Ostovar points to a recent missile attack launched by Hezbollah at Israeli’s Prime Ministers seaside home that proves Iran’s proxies can still do damage.

According to Ostovar, Iran has one of the largest arsenals of ballistic missiles and drones in the Middle East including cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles, in addition to ballistic missiles with ranges up to 2,000 kilometers.

Tehran also has a large inventory of drones with ranges of around 1,200 to 1,550 miles, some of which are reportedly being used by Russia in Ukraine.

Israel is advanced in every aspect of its military compared to Iran, from its aircraft to its missiles, radar, to its anti-air defense system, said Ostovar.

The author and national security expert told Iran International Israel officials won't stop at just one strike, and Iranian officials will fire back, and as the war expands the potential for hurting people on both sides also increase.

“That's my worry is that this war expands to civilian targets because once that happens then people on both sides are going to suffer greatly."

To find out more and see why Ostovar believes neither side can actually win this conflict and how allies and the region would react, watch the full episode on YouTube or listen on Spotify, Castbox, Apple or Amazon.

The survey was conducted by polling firm Stasis in association with Washington DC-based thinktank the Middle East Institute in late September and early October, and included 1,189 Iranians aged 18 and older.

The results show Iranians are critical of certain aspects of foreign policy yet resolute on others, particularly around Tehran's military influence in the region.

78 percent of respondents said they believed Iran’s foreign policy was harming their livelihood yet 60 percent said they favor providing military support to allied armed groups across the Middle East.

On the diplomatic front, around two in three respondents favored establishing relations with the United States but most opposed normalization with Israel. Only around a quarter said they completely or somewhat agree with the statement that “Iran should normalize its relationship with Israel.”

“The extraordinary circumstances surrounding the survey period—with Iran and Israel teetering on the brink of war—likely heightened patriotic or emotional responses, particularly toward Iran’s military activities in the region,” said Alex Vatanka, Director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute.

He added that this urgency could help explain the significant support for maintaining a military presence in the Middle East and backing allied groups, despite widespread discontent over the cost.

Around half of those who took part in the survey approved of Iran’s presence in Syria.

Vatanka said this could point to possible gaps in public understanding of foreign policy and its scope. “Some respondents may have failed to see that the Islamic Republic’s regional military engagements are central to its foreign policy. They appear to have overlooked the connection between Iranian activities in the region and the isolation that has left the economy in ruins”.

The poll captured Iranian sentiment during a period marked by geopolitical tension, including the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah by an Israeli air strike last month and Iran’s retaliatory attack against Israel on Oct. 1.

A majority of those who took part in the survey (59 percent) felt Iran was in a stronger position following these developments. Even more (69 percent) said they felt safer as a result of the country’s military involvement in the Middle East, including its backing of regional armed groups.

Iranians were nearly evenly divided over the country’s alignment with global powers. 34 percent expressed a preference for strengthening ties with Russia and China, and an equal 34 percent preferred Western partnerships, including with the United States and Great Britain. Sixteen percent chose both, and another 16 percent were undecided.

Gauging the public mood in Iran is challenging, especially on issues of national security. Dozens are tried and jailed every year for expressing views on issues that the government deems sensitive.

“Rapid changes in the political environment of the region could potentially affect public opinion regarding some survey questions, especially those directly related to Iran’s foreign affairs,” Statis, the polling firm, wrote in its report.

The move appeared calibrated to avoid pushing the Mideast closer to all-out war between two of its strongest military powers, with no casualties immediately reported.

Combat pitting the Jewish state against Iran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas has ratcheted up in recent weeks, bringing Iran and Israel into more direct confrontation.

Multiple explosions were heard in and around Tehran at around 2:15 am local time and several hours later again in the capital and in two southwestern cities.

The Israeli military said "The retaliatory strike has been completed and the mission was fulfilled," adding that "aircraft struck missile manufacturing facilities used to produce the missiles that Iran fired at the State of Israel over the last year."

Targets also included surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft capabilities, the military added.

“Iran reserves the right to respond to all attacks and there’s no doubt that Israel will get a proportionate response to any action” IRGC-affiliated Tasnim news agency quoted an informed source as saying.

They added that "initial assessment shows the Zionist regime’s actions were weak.”

The United States, Israel's main political and military backer, described the attack on their mutual archenemy in the region as self-defense.

"We understand that Israel is conducting targeted strikes against military targets in Iran as an exercise of self-defense and in response to Iran’s ballistic missile attack against Israel", US National Security Council spokesman Sean Savett said in a statement.

Jonathan Harounoff, International Spokesperson for Israel at the United Nations told Iran International Israel had to respond to Iran's missile barrage.

"Israel has a right and a duty to defend itself from a regime that has continued to attack Israel relentlessly over the past year, directly and through its terror proxies," he said.

Iran's Oct. 1 ballistic missile fusillade against Israel came in response to Israel's likely assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July and killing of Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah last month.

It was the second direct attack by the Islamic Republic on Israel this year after an earlier salvo in April which also caused minimal damage or casualties and was repelled with US help.

Israel's strike on Iran unfolded in three stages, Israel's public broadcaster said.

Blasts were also heard in the southwestern cities of Ahvaz and Abadan in Khuzestan province, residents told Iran International.

Mizan News agency in Iran reported sounds of renewed explosions in central Tehran.

Strikes hit Parchin, a large area of military factories for missiles and drones, according to Beni Sabti, an expert on Iran from the Israeli National Security and Strategy Institute (INSS).

Sabti used to serve as a Persian spokesperson for the Israeli government on Iranian issues and is in frequent contact with senior Israeli officials.

The Israeli military announced the completion of its retaliatory strikes against Iran around 6am local time, saying they damaged Iran's military infrastructure - including air defense systems and ballistic missiles capabilities.

Israeli military officials told reporters in a briefing that dozens of fighter jets participated in the attack and have all returned to their bases safely.

The operation was code named "Days of Repentance," and marks the first time Israel took responsibility for an attack in Iran. 

Riyadh and other Arab allies of the United States in the Persian Gulf region have been relieved to some extent after receiving what Bloomberg called a "tacit offer" presented by the Biden administration over the past few weeks.

Bloomberg did not specify whether the assurance was given during US Secretary of State Antony Blinken's trips to Saudi Arabia and Qatar earlier this week.

Blinken visited the two Arab countries following a trip to Israel, as the entire region braecs for a long-awaited Israeli response to the October 1 missile barrage Tehran launched.

Earlier this month, Iran warned its Arab neighbors that it would be "unacceptable" to allow Israel or the United States to use their airspace or bases against Iran, threatening a response if they do.

"Israel is receiving contacts and requests from (Persian) Gulf countries to inform it in advance of the expected response so that it can take precautions in the event of a counterattack," US-funded outlet Alhurra cited an Israeli source saying earlier this week.

However, Iran's exchanges with regional countries do not appear to be limited to threats, as Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi sought to also shore up support among regional nations to mitigate Israel’s actions during a recent tour of the Middle East which included visits to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq.

'Israel ready to attack after multiple delays'

"The Israeli military's preparations for an attack on Iran have been completed, and they are now only awaiting the political leadership's order to carry out the attack," Israel's Channel 11 reported Friday.

The report added that Israel has delayed its planned attack "several times" over the past weeks. While it said it cannot disclose the reason for delaying the response, new unverified documents, allegedly leaked from the Pentagon and circulated on social media over the past 24 hours, indicate that Israel originally planned to attack "major military facilities" in Iran on October 19, between 03:00 and 04:00, according to a report by the Israeli website Ynet.

The Israeli air force intended to use bunker-busting bombs to hit targets in Iran and electronic warfare to neutralize Iran’s air defenses in its planned attack on October 19 which was closely coordinated with the US, according to the unverified leaked documents.

If authentic, the documents suggest that Israel delayed the planned attack hours after a pro-Iran Telegram channel leaked classified Pentagon documents on the Israeli attack plan. However, it remains unclear whether the alleged October 19 attack was canceled due to the leak or for other reasons.

The FBI launched an investigation into the leak while Republican critics ripped the Biden administration for mishandling intelligence just two weeks before the November 5 elections.

The top-secret documents began circulating online on Friday after being posted on Telegram by an account called "Middle East Spectator." Dated October 15 and 16, the intelligence on Israel's attack plan was intended for viewing only by the US and its "Five Eyes" allies, which include Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

While the timing and specifics of Israel's retaliation remain unclear, sources informed CNN last week that it is expected to take place before the US presidential election on November 5.

Previous reports from multiple news outlets indicate that Israel has assured the US it will refrain from targeting nuclear or energy infrastructure, though other reports suggest that all options are still on the table.