In a recent interview, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak shared his insights on Israel’s potential military response to Iran’s recent missile attack. Barak, who has also served as defense minister, foreign minister, and army chief of staff, suggests that a symbolic attack might be on the horizon. This prediction comes in the wake of Iran’s assault involving over 180 ballistic missiles, most of which were intercepted, but some of which landed in populated areas and on Israeli military bases.

The Imperative of Response and Potential Targets

According to Barak, Israel faces a compelling need to respond to Iran’s aggression. He emphasizes that no sovereign nation could fail to act in the face of such an attack. The former prime minister outlines two likely scenarios for Israel’s retaliation:

1. A large-scale airstrike against Iran’s oil industry
2. A possible symbolic attack on military targets related to Iran’s nuclear program

Barak draws parallels between the potential Israeli response and recent airstrikes against Houthi-controlled oil facilities, power plants, and docks in Yemen’s port of Hodeidah. These strikes were carried out in retaliation for Houthi missile attacks aimed at Israel’s international airport near Tel Aviv.

The Limitations of Military Action Against Iran’s Nuclear Program

While advocating for a strong response, Barak offers a nuanced view on targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities. Despite being a vocal proponent of such actions during his tenure as defense minister from 2007 to 2013, Barak now acknowledges that circumstances have changed significantly.

He argues that Iran has become a de facto nuclear threshold country, making it extremely difficult to significantly delay its nuclear ambitions through military strikes. Barak estimates that while Iran may not currently possess a nuclear weapon, it could potentially develop one within a year and a small arsenal within half a decade.

This shift in perspective is notable, given Barak’s previous hawkish stance on the issue. He recalls his efforts to convince U.S. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama to contribute American military might to a campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities. However, he now concedes that such actions would likely be futile in significantly setting back Iran’s nuclear program.

Symbolic Attack and Regional Implications

Despite the limited effectiveness of strikes against nuclear facilities, Barak suggests that pressure within the Netanyahu government may lead to at least a symbolic attack on Iran’s nuclear-related targets. He views such an action as potentially perceived by some planners as worth the risk, given the alternative of inaction.

The former prime minister places the current tensions within a broader context of missed opportunities for de-escalation. Barak criticizes Netanyahu’s rejection of U.S.-promoted plans to rally Arab support for a post-war Palestinian government in Gaza to replace Hamas. He argues that this refusal to discuss “the day after” solutions that recognize Palestinian sovereignty has contributed to the current regional instability.

While Barak maintains that the primary fault lies with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, he emphasizes Israel’s responsibility to act strategically, considering both opportunities and constraints. He invokes a Roman saying to illustrate his point: “If you don’t know which port you want to reach, no wind will take you there.”

The Evolving Nuclear Landscape

Barak’s analysis takes into account the significant changes in Iran’s nuclear capabilities since the 2015 multilateral nuclear agreement. Following the U.S. withdrawal from this agreement under President Trump in 2018, Iran has substantially increased its uranium enrichment activities. The country now possesses a uranium stockpile 30 times higher than the agreed 2015 limit and is enriching uranium to up to 60% purity, which is close to the 90% weapons-grade level.

These developments have dramatically reduced Iran’s “breakout time” – the period needed to produce a nuclear bomb – from at least a year under the 2015 agreement to just a few weeks now. This rapid advancement in Iran’s nuclear capabilities underpins Barak’s assertion that military strikes would no longer be effective in significantly delaying the program.

International Perspectives and Potential Consequences

The possibility of an Israeli symbolic attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities raises concerns about potential escalation and international reactions. U.S. President Joe Biden has voiced opposition to any Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear sites, echoing the stance of his predecessor, Barack Obama. This position highlights the delicate balance Israel must strike between responding to perceived threats and maintaining international support, particularly from its closest ally.

The prospect of Israeli strikes on Iran’s oil sector adds another layer of complexity to the situation. Such actions could have far-reaching economic consequences, potentially impacting global oil markets and further destabilizing the region. The international community will likely be closely monitoring any developments in this direction, given the potential for wider repercussions.

Ehud Barak’s prediction of a possible symbolic attack by Israel on Iran’s nuclear-related facilities reflects the complex geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. While acknowledging the need for a strong Israeli response to recent aggressions, Barak’s analysis also highlights the limitations of military action in addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. As tensions continue to simmer, the international community watches closely, aware that any escalation could have far-reaching consequences for regional stability and global security. The coming weeks may prove crucial in determining whether diplomacy can prevail or if the region will witness another round of conflict.