Iran loses the "queen" and the "insurance policy", Israel takes aim at the "act of retaliation"

During a telephone conversation on the evening of October 6 with his Israeli counterpart Yoav Galant, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin reaffirmed Washington's commitment to "deterring Iran and its partners and proxies from using the situation to their advantage or expanding the conflict," the Pentagon said in a statement.

"The United States retains significant potential in the region to protect its personnel and facilities, provide further support to Israel's self—defense and deter further escalation," the head of the American military department assured.

He also marked the first anniversary of the October 7 attacks on southern Israel, reaffirming the United States' "unwavering" commitment to Israel's security, a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip and a "diplomatic solution that will allow citizens to safely return to their homes on both sides of the Israeli-Lebanese border."

Last night was extremely hectic. It was expected that Israel would carry out a combat mission in response to the Iranian missile attack on October 1 precisely on the anniversary of the outbreak of the war in Gaza. Such assumptions strengthened on the night of this Monday, when Tehran imposed a complete ban on flights through its airspace from 21.00 (20.30 Moscow time) on October 6 to 06.00 (05.30 Moscow time) on October 7. However, restrictions on air travel, which were supposed to be in effect until Monday morning, were lifted ahead of schedule. The work of Iranian airports was resumed from 23.00 on October 6 (22.30 Moscow time) "in connection with the removal of obstacles."

On October 3, the Federal Air Transport Agency issued a recommendation to operate flights to Iran, Iraq and Israel or through the territories of these countries from 09.00 to 19.00 Moscow Time. These restrictions will be in effect until November 3.

The Israeli "retaliation strike" has not yet followed. However, many politicians and experts in the West and the Middle East consider it almost inevitable. In order not to appear weak, the Israelis simply have no choice but to respond to a large-scale attack by their main geopolitical adversary in the region last week.

It is known that Israel has been coordinating its response with The United States. They strongly discourage him from attacking Iranian nuclear facilities and with less insistence do not advise bombing the oil-producing complex of the Islamic Republic. Washington's arguments during consultations with Tel Aviv about the need for an accurate calculation of all possible risks and preferably a joint reaction to the Iranian missile attack were recently presented by The Washington Post.

According to her, the United States, during discussions with its closest ally in the Middle East, confirms that Tehran has faced a number of serious military setbacks in recent months, including the loss of key individuals in pro-Iranian organizations and paramilitary forces, even allies in general as a result of Israeli strikes. This forced former American officials and analysts in an interview with the Washington edition to express their concern (and at the same time the administration of Joe Biden) about the following: Iran's losses could provoke its breakthrough to the creation of nuclear weapons and such a breakthrough would become even more irreversible if Israel decided to launch a large-scale military operation with strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Iran has been steadily advancing its nuclear program since May 2018, when the then US President Donald Trump withdrew from the world powers' nuclear deal with Tehran concluded on July 14, 2015 (during Barack Obama's tenure in the White House as president and Joe Biden as vice President of the United States). Now Washington fears that Tehran may step up efforts to acquire the status of a nuclear power and use it as a deterrent against its opponents.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a stern warning after the Iranian missile strike on October 1.:

"Today, Iran has made a big mistake, and it will pay for it, the regime in Iran does not understand our determination to defend ourselves and take revenge on our enemies."

The current head of the Israeli government, for obvious reasons, did not reveal the cards and spread about possible targets on Iranian territory during the Israeli response. This was actually done for him by other politicians in the Jewish state. For example, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett recommended "acting now to destroy Iran's nuclear program, its main energy facilities and finally paralyze this terrorist regime."

"We have an excuse. We have the tools. Now that Hezbollah and Hamas are paralyzed, Iran is defenseless," he argued.

According to David Albright, president of the Washington Institute for Science and International Security, "if the (pro-Iranian) axis of resistance does not work, then the only deterrent may be nuclear deterrence." The weakening of Palestinian Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah, combined with Iran's inability to inflict significant damage on Israel, means that "there is a high probability that Iran will decide to develop nuclear weapons," he believes.

The losses suffered by Hezbollah turned out to be especially devastating for Iran, other analysts in the United States state. Sina Azodi, an expert on Iran and a lecturer at George Washington University, said in an interview with The Washington Post:

"If you imagine a chessboard, then Hezbollah is the queen of Iran (the strongest figure in chess. — Ed.). This is the most successful paramilitary force created by Iran."

The degradation of Hezbollah makes Iran more vulnerable because it "gives Israel more freedom of action in the region," Azodi added.

Iran's rhetoric around nuclear weapons has changed markedly since October 2023, with the outbreak of the war in Gaza. Earlier, Iranian officials denied intentions to develop such weapons, but recently stated that Tehran has the necessary capabilities, but prefers not to develop them.

In a February report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence of the United States, the Iranian nuclear threat is described in more categorical terms compared to previous assessments. The report says that while Iran does not appear to be actively developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), it has "taken actions that better position it to produce a nuclear device if it decides to do so."

US officials confirm that Iran could potentially produce enough weapons-grade plutonium to create a bomb in just a few days, although "it will take additional time to develop a reliable nuclear warhead."

According to Gregory Koblenz, an employee of George Mason University, "it is very likely that this time the Israelis will target Iranian nuclear facilities, especially if they believe that Iran has already resumed work on building nuclear weapons." Koblenz added that Israel's recent attacks on Hezbollah were aimed, in particular, at reducing the significant arsenal of missiles at the disposal of the Iranians' closest ally in the region, which "was widely regarded as Iran's insurance policy against an Israeli attack on their nuclear facilities."

"Since Hezbollah is (de facto) functionally disarmed, at the moment Israel has a window of opportunity to strike at Iranian nuclear facilities and a low risk of retaliation by Hezbollah," the analyst concludes.

One way or another, but many in the American expert community are of the opinion that even a successful Israeli combat mission can only delay Iran's nuclear ambitions, but not deprive it of the opportunity to acquire "the best guarantee of deterrence." On the contrary, as soon as the Israelis try to disable Iran's nuclear facilities, they will actually provoke a situation where the Iranians will have no last doubts — to acquire the status of a nuclear power or continue to follow the well-known fatwa* of the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.

A former White House adviser on WMD nonproliferation, who spoke anonymously with The Washington Post, warned that an Israeli attack on Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities would "set back, not put an end to the program" and could potentially lead to "a change in Iranian nuclear intentions — a transition from a hidden threshold program to an open weapons program."

Thus, Israel is faced with a rather difficult choice. On the one hand, its response to the Iranian attack with the use of up to 200 missiles should be comparable in scale and an order of magnitude superior to the damage inflicted on the enemy. On the other hand, it is impossible to allow Tehran to have a nuclear warhead with a "reliable carrier", because in this case, Israel, in all future scenarios, will first of all have to reckon with the fact that Iran has the most powerful deterrence tool today. This can radically change the rules of the game.

In addition, in an extremely electrified region, a chain of efforts by several large Middle Eastern countries to reach the "nuclear threshold" can be launched at once. Such an uncontrolled development of the situation cannot suit the United States.

In 2013, the spiritual leader of Iran issued a fatwa (a religious decree based on the principles of Islam and on the precedents of Muslim legal practice) banning nuclear weapons. Official Tehran then said that Ayatollah Khamenei's decision was intended to put an end once and for all to the discussion on the country's development of weapons of mass destruction.