Unlock the US Election Countdown newsletter for free

The important stories about money and politics in the race for the White House

The author is Director of Regional Security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies

The Israeli attack, which occurred in the early hours of October 26, had been expected since the massive Iranian missile attack on October 1. What was not known was the exact timing or targets that the Israeli leadership would choose. It will take a few days for a full picture of the damage done to emerge, but this much is clear: the attack was limited in scale in nature, but still had a significant impact.

Weeks of uncertainty over Israel's choice of targets had left everyone from the White House to the Arab corridors of power to the financial markets and Gulf expatriates nervous and fearful of a possible expansion of the conflict. At the top end were command sites, nuclear facilities and energy facilities. In the middle range of options were military sites, including air defense systems and missile and drone production factories.

Targeting the former would have meant risking an all-out war that no country wanted. Choosing the latter was a way of telling Iran to go home or else it would happen.

As it stands, Israel has once again demonstrated its military superiority over its ultimate rival. It remains the only power in the region capable of accomplishing something like this – in fact, most European militaries would struggle to match that feat. Some in Israel, such as opposition leader Yair Lapid, have argued that the scale of the attack was a mistake and that the Israelis should have hit Iran harder.

A central issue for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the US presidential election. The Biden administration and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris are desperate to avoid a major war that would deepen discontent within their own party less than two weeks before the election. But no matter who wins on November 5, the period leading up to the inauguration of the new president on January 20, 2025 will be a moment of grave danger for the US government and the region.

The Biden administration will claim that its advice was a constraint on Israel. They have already said that this latest attack should mean “the end” of direct exchanges between Israel and Iran, just as they believed that the killings of Yahya Sinwar and Hassan Nasrallah had a decisive impact on the fighting in Gaza and Lebanon would. However, this turned out to be wishful thinking on the part of Americans.

Iran, whose Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei signaled a measured response on Sunday, faces a deepening dilemma: step back but appear weak and invite further attacks, or retaliate and risk outright defeat. The loss of air defense leaves it vulnerable to further attacks. The destruction of missile production facilities suggests it will not be able to quickly replenish its offensive arsenal to stay in the fight while Israel receives more defense systems and interceptor missiles from the United States and other countries.

Iran's problems go deeper. Two of the three pillars of his security strategy are faltering. Its beleaguered militia partners in Lebanon, Palestine and Syria are no longer able to deter and punish Israel. Rebuilding them will take decades and may not even be possible. Its arsenal of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones did not have the expected military impact. These now need to be replenished and better technology developed. The last pillar of the strategy, its nuclear program, is more vulnerable than ever, and rushing to produce a bomb could trigger the very war Iran is trying to avoid.

Iran's ability to retaliate is becoming increasingly limited. As a result, it could look for less well-defended targets, such as U.S. facilities and interests in the Gulf states. Growing concern in this part of the region is why Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and others quickly condemned the Israeli attacks and suggested diplomatic detours.

Ultimately, Israel remains in control of the escalation and may decide to press its advantage. Today, Netanyahu is the only leader in the Middle East who does what he wants, even as he watches others, including the United States, give in and adapt.

Israeli officials believe that the country's operational competence and success on the battlefield will overcome any political and moral concerns that Americans, Europeans and Arabs have about waging these wars. Netanyahu was certainly pleased when Donald Trump told him to “do what he has to do” on a recent call. His defense planners are likely to put other ideas on the table. But like the Iranians, Netanyahu should guard against the temptations of hubris.