I've been wondering during the last days how Israeli attack on Iran will look like. Lets speculate.
Bunch of premises to build on:
1. Long term strategic goals - severely compromising nuclear program (unrealistic to destroy completely) and weakening the regime at least enough to make it disengage from the Israel geopolitical arena at least for the near future.
2. Must be devastating enough to prevent short/mid-term retaliation against Israel and broader coalition (moderate Arabs and US assets).
3. Time frame is very limited - US election is a deadline. I wouldn't be surprised if IL gov. decides October 7th would be a good day for this - the sheer symbolic meaning of this will have an awesome resonance.
How:
1. Overwhelming cyber + kinetic attack against means of communications for the whole country. I mean a complete blackout - no internet, no landlines, no cellular, no TV, no radio, nothing at all. Think Hezbollah beeper + later comms attacks x 1000.
2. Kinetic attack against key energy and nuclear facilities.
3. Decapitating the IRGC Hezbollah style - they are also in charge of the missile force.
4. Blocking sea and airports either via kinetic and cyber means.
5. Aggressive posturing by US and allies to prevent any thought of retaliation.
If the goal includes also complete collapse of the regime (admittedly, overtly optimistic scenario):
5. Wiping out the banking system and all the gov. electronic records (or at least preventing access to) - complete civil chaos.
6. Decapitating the regime itself in addition to IRGC top brass, including the ayatollahs. Not military though, which might play later a role in the regime change (the crown prince already made calls to the military, which I found interesting).
7. Simultaneous attack by the sleeper cells in Tehran to capture the centers of power, and mass rebellion in the anti-regime provinces (the Kurds, Baluchis, Arabs, Azeris etc).
Thoughts?
I was talking to my friend in Hadera this afternoon, he's an IDF reserve, semi-retired, C4i Corps. These are his personal thoughts:
An attack on October 7th however symbolic is bad because:
a) Iran will be thinking that an attack could come on that day and will boost their defences and alert status.
b) Israel will be on high alert for any potential attacks waged on the anniversary of "Al-Aqsa Flood".
Israel is better to strike in order to do the most damage to the enemy rather than a strike with any kind of symbolism.
Degrees of attack form would be three tiered:
1) Mild response - Attack on the nuclear facilities; destruction of any potential nuclear weapon production capabilities and enrichment of Yellowcake at Natanz and Isfahan, perhaps others.
2) Medium response - Destruction of oil infrastructure which includes refinement, transportation causing severe economic damage that will do more than sanctions ever could.
3) Severe response - A strike to eliminate Khamanei himself, leading to the potential overthrow of the Islamic Republic.
He personally believes that the mild response is the most likely for these reasons:
a) No alienation of civilians.
b) Iran has proven that it can deliver warheads to Israel, this is the perfect justification to make sure these can never go nuclear.
c) Justification to hit nuclear facilities comes "once in a life time". Back when Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities there was worldwide condemnation including allies. Then the Gulf War happened and everybody realised how fortunate it was that Saddam didn't have nuclear capability.
If key nuclear sites can he harmed in the same way as Hezbollah HQ, it would be an adequate response and comes with a "Hasbara friendly" justification:
"Iran launched ICBMs at the state of Israel, with some penetrating air defences and causing damage. Therefore we are perfectly justified in making sure that these missiles will never be equipped with a nuclear payload."
Thinks is over-ambitious to assume that the current cabinet would activate Mossad assets in a relatiatory manner, unless it was absolutely necessary (given how hugely valuable said assets would be), in such a situation where the goal was to literally overthrow the regime entirely.
A massive cyber attack which collapses Iran's civilisation will be a harder sell too, and would expose a lot of assets, only for Iran to learn from such a incident and apply fixes. Again it would be better to save this for when the day comes to remove the Ayatollah.
He also says that any kind of response should potentially have the Saudis on board to use their air space officially (for the much needed refueling and helping towards the building of friendly relations etc).
Of course none of this takes into account Iran's response to any such action of retaliation, only what should/could be done in the immediate answer to yesterday's brazen assault on the country.
The Cabinet could completely surprise everyone and decide to take out the regime itself. No one could have predicted the pager explosions and wiping out Hezbollah's Command and Control abilities in a few days, we're in uncharted territory right now...
