Israel's apparent strike on Iran after several days of hesitation was small and seems designed to reduce the risks of a major war, even if the very fact that it happened broke the taboo of direct attacks that Tehran broke a few days earlier.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's war cabinet initially approved plans to strike inside Iranian territory on Monday night to respond forcefully to missiles and drones fired from Iran last Saturday, but changed its mind at the last minute, three sources familiar with the situation told Reuters.
By then, the sources claim, the three voting members of the war cabinet had already ruled out the most drastic response - an attack on strategic sites including Iran's nuclear facilities, the destruction of which would almost certainly trigger a wider regional conflict.
Amid cabinet divisions and strong warnings from partners including the US and Gulf states not to escalate, and aware of the need to keep international opinion on Israel's side, plans for a counterattack have been delayed twice, the sources said. Two War Cabinet meetings were also postponed twice, government officials said.
Israel's options ranged from striking strategic Iranian facilities, including nuclear sites or Revolutionary Guard bases, to covert operations, targeted assassinations, and cyber attacks on strategic industrial and nuclear facilities.
Before the attack, a spokesman for the government's National Directorate of Public Diplomacy quoted Netanyahu as saying that Israel would defend itself in any way it saw fit.
Reuters spoke to 12 sources in Israel, Iran and the Gulf region, as well as the US, who described six tumultuous days of efforts in the Gulf, the US and among some Israeli war planners to limit the response to Iran's first direct attack on its arch-rival after decades of war in the shade.
"We have warned of a serious danger of further escalation," Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi told Reuters, saying a wider regional conflict would have catastrophic consequences and risk diverting global attention from Israel's war in Gaza.
Safadi said that his country, which borders Israel, "has made it clear to everyone that it will not be a battlefield for Israel and Iran. This firm position has been unequivocally communicated to everyone."
Most of the sources wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the subject.
Yesterday's attack appears to have targeted an Iranian air force base near the city of Isfahan, deep in the country and close enough to nuclear facilities to send a message of Israel's reach, but without using aircraft, ballistic missiles, striking any strategic location or causing major damage, according to Reuters.
Drones launched from Iran?
Iran said its defense systems shot down three drones over a base near Isfahan early Friday.
Israel has not commented on the incident. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said the US had not participated in any offensive operations. He said yesterday that Washington is working to de-escalate tensions.
An Iranian official told Reuters there were signs the drones were launched by "infiltrators" from Iran, which could obviate the need for retaliation.
A source familiar with Western intelligence assessments of the incident also said initial evidence suggested Israel had launched the drones from Iranian territory.
Iran's response options included closing the Strait of Hormuz through which about a fifth of the world's oil passes, encouraging proxies to attack Israeli or American interests, and using previously unused missiles.
"Israel tried to calibrate between the need to respond and the desire not to enter into a cycle of action and reaction that would only escalate endlessly," said Itamar Rabinovitch, Israel's former ambassador to Washington.
He described the situation as a dance, with both sides signaling to each other their intentions and next steps.
"There is enormous relief across the Gulf region. It appears that the attack was limited and proportionate and caused limited damage. I see it as a de-escalation," Saudi analyst Abdelrahman al-Rashed told Reuters.
Biden's call
Reuters said the decision to abandon wider and immediate action this week underscored rival pressures on Netanyahu's government after Iran fired more than 300 drones and missiles on Saturday night.
As the Iranian fire continued, two members of the war cabinet, Benny Gantz and Gadi Eizenkot, both former commanders of the armed forces, pushed for an immediate response before agreeing to a delay after a call from US President Joe Biden and in the face of differing views from other ministers , said two Israeli officials familiar with the situation.
Arieh Deri, the leader of one of the ultra-Orthodox parties in Netanyahu's coalition, who has observer status in the war cabinet and has generally been wary of drastic moves, strongly opposed an immediate attack on Iran, believing it could endanger the people of Israel given risk of escalation, his party spokesman said.
"We should also listen to our partners, our friends in the world. I say this clearly: I don't see any shame or weakness in that," Deri told the "Hadereh" newspaper.
An ultra-orthodox observer in the cabinet was against it if Iran were to be attacked immediately
Israel's options ranged from striking strategic Iranian facilities, including nuclear sites or Revolutionary Guard bases, to covert operations, targeted assassinations and cyberattacks on strategic industrial and nuclear facilities, analysts and former officials in Israel said.
Gulf countries were increasingly concerned that the situation would spill over into "a serious regional conflagration that no one would be able to contain," Saudi analyst Abdelaziz al Sager said.
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have publicly called for maximum "self-restraint" to avoid a wider war in the region.
Sager said the Gulf countries had warned the US of the risk of escalation, arguing that Israel should only launch a limited attack without casualties or significant damage that could trigger major retaliation.
This message has been "strongly conveyed" in recent days by the Jordanians, Saudis and Qataris through direct security and diplomatic channels, a senior regional intelligence source said.
Hardliners disappointed
By Thursday, four diplomatic and government sources in the region expressed confidence that the response would be limited and proportionate.
Before the Israeli strike, a regional source briefed on Israel's plans said the response would aim to minimize or avoid casualties and would likely target a military base.
Flying F-35 fighter jets from Israel to Iran, or launching missiles from Israel, would almost certainly violate the airspace of neighboring countries, angering Arab states that Netanyahu has long sought to win over as strategic allies, a Gulf government source said.
He could not "just fly F-35 fighter jets over the region and bomb Iran or its nuclear sites," the source said.
Iranian officials have warned that they would immediately retaliate against a major Israeli attack.
Iran's response options included closing the Strait of Hormuz through which about a fifth of the world's oil passes, encouraging proxies to attack Israeli or American interests and using previously unused missiles, a senior Iranian official said.
The measured attack pleased Israeli moderates at home, its neighbors and international partners, but disappointed hardliners in Netanyahu's cabinet, Reuters writes.
Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben Gvir, whose ultra-nationalist party plays a key role in Netanyahu's coalition, posted one word on the X network, "Weak."
Bonus video:
