Israel faced a new wave of attacks this weekend as it defended itself from hundreds of drones and missiles launched by Iran and its proxies in the region. Assisted by Western and regional allies and partners, Israeli air defences were able to successfully shoot down a vast majority of the incoming projectiles. The Hub’s publisher Rudyard Griffiths exchanged with Janice Gross Stein on the assault, what a response may look like, and how this affects the war in Gaza. Stein is the Belzberg Professor of Conflict Management at The University of Toronto and founding director of the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy. Regularly consulted by governments on foreign policy issues, Stein recently co-chaired the National Advisory Committee on Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy.
RUDYARD GRIFFITHS: What surprised you about Iran’s attack on Israel?
JANICE GROSS STEIN: I was surprised by the scope and scale of Iran’s attack, which was itself a response to Israel’s attack against Iran’s consulate in Damascus that killed seven Iranian officials, including a very senior general. Like many others, I anticipated a proportionate response against an Israeli embassy or an escalation by one of Iran’s proxies. That was not what happened. Instead, Iran launched an attack from bases in western Iran of hundreds of drones, cruise missiles, and, most surprisingly, more than a hundred ballistic missiles that were aimed at the southern Negev inside Israel. This can only be considered a major escalation designed, in the words of Hossein Salami, the commander-in-chief of the IRGC, to “change the equation.”
RUDYARD GRIFFITHS: Why was the use of over a hundred ballistic missiles in the attack significant in itself?
JANICE GROSS STEIN: The use of ballistic missiles was the most concerning element of Iran’s response. They have the longest range and can cause greater damage on impact than either drones or cruise missiles. A few of the ballistic missiles were able to break through Israel’s layered air defence system and inflict damage on the Nevatim air base in the south, home to Israel’s squadron of F-35s. The risks that Iran was willing to run in its attack are, quite frankly, astonishing, given that missiles were intercepted over the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, over the West Bank, and in the south where Dimona, which houses Israel’s nuclear installations, is located.
RUDYARD GRIFFITHS: What could be the range of Israeli responses and, right now, which do you think is most likely to prevail?
JANICE GROSS STEIN: Israel has a broad range of military responses to choose from. It could choose to eliminate senior military leaders of the Revolutionary Guard inside Tehran, it could attack one of several of Iran’s proxies just over its borders that launched some of these missiles, it could engage in a major offensive cyber operation against Iran, or it could attack the two military bases in western Iran from where most of the missiles were launched. Or, in a much more serious escalation, it could attack one of Iran’s nuclear installations. It is impossible to know which option Israel’s war cabinet will choose and when it will respond.
I have little doubt that it will respond, but Israel can make important diplomatic gains if it delays its response and if it chooses a relatively proportionate response. It would benefit from a delay which would give the G-7 an opportunity to put a robust process of diplomacy and enhanced sanctions in play and the house speaker to bring forward the supplementary bill that would supply military aid to Israel.
RUDYARD GRIFFITHS: How do the weekend’s events affect the course of the war in Gaza?
JANICE GROSS STEIN: In the very short term, if Israel delays its response, Iran’s strike certainly deflects attention from Gaza. Prime Minister Netanyahu may well use the opportunity to launch tactical strikes against Rafah, especially now that Yahya Sinwar has rejected the latest offer for a six-week ceasefire and a return of 40 hostages. As suspicion grows that a significant number of the hostages may have died, there may well be a greater incentive to go ahead with attacks inside Rafah. If Israel goes ahead quickly with a military response to Iran’s attack, then attention will shift dramatically to the prospect of a wider regional war that could draw in the great powers. Palestinians in Gaza and the hostages held by Hamas would be the victims of a diplomatic shift to the prospect of a wider war.
RUDYARD GRIFFITHS: How could the attack change U.S., Israeli, and the region’s thinking on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program?
JANICE GROSS STEIN: I do not think the attack will change much of the thinking about Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. To put it bluntly, Iran is already a threshold nuclear power that can manufacture a nuclear weapon within weeks should it choose to do so. Now that weapon would have to be tested and married to a delivery system, which would take some time, but it is already too late to reverse Iran’s threshold nuclear status. That strategy has never succeeded with a state that was determined to become a nuclear power. It did not succeed with Israel, India, Pakistan, or North Korea.
