Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, discussed the possibility of launching a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities following Tehran’s missile barrage on October 1, 2024.
On that day, Iran fired roughly 200 ballistic missiles at multiple targets across Israel. While most were intercepted, several managed to penetrate Israeli air defenses, causing damage to the Negev Desert’s Nevatim Airbase and reportedly striking key high-security sites in Tel Aviv, including the Mossad headquarters.
Tehran described the attack as retaliation for Israel’s role in the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, Hezbollah’s chairman Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, and its ground invasion of Lebanon.
Although the physical damage to Israeli infrastructure was relatively limited, the Israeli government vowed a military response.
On October 26, 2024, Israel carried out airstrikes targeting Iran’s S-300 air defense systems and military facilities in the provinces of Tehran, Khuzestan, and Ilam. However, reports from Israeli media indicate that the leadership had seriously considered going further, specifically by striking Iran’s nuclear sites.
Internal Debate Among Israeli Leaders
For years, Israel has been preparing to strike Iran’s nuclear sites. However, after Iran’s missile attack on October 1, 2024, the discussions acquired a new level of urgency.
Former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi were among the strongest advocates for a forceful military response. They argued that Iran’s unprecedented direct attack had changed the rules of engagement and demanded an equally aggressive Israeli reply.
Initially hesitant, Prime Minister Netanyahu gradually came to share their position. By late October, he had aligned with Gallant and Halevi’s call for escalation and expressed willingness to target Iran’s advanced air defense systems.
Mossad Director David Barnea also leaned toward a strong military response. However, he emphasized the need for U.S. backing, not just as diplomatic cover but as a critical factor in ensuring that the operation’s strategic objectives are met and preventing broader fallout.
Meanwhile, opposition figures and former coalition members Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, who had left the government by June, warned against a retaliatory strike. Their approach favored strategic restraint over immediate escalation.
By the end of October, Israeli officials had grown more confident in their ability to bypass Iran’s S-300 systems. Despite this, they opted for a limited and calculated counterstrike. Focusing on missile sites and air defenses while deliberately avoiding Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
The Trump Factor
For years, Israel had been planning both solo operations and joint missions with the United States to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.
Israeli officials have long maintained that any significant move against Iran’s nuclear program would require American approval.
Previous U.S. administrations, especially under President Barack Obama, consistently advised caution. They warned that an Israeli strike could ignite a full-scale war, destabilizing the region and undermining global diplomatic efforts.
Israeli officials now believe their military can carry out a limited strike on Iran that requires minimal U.S. support. The operation would be significantly smaller than initially proposed. Their optimism is shaped by the belief that Iran had been significantly weakened.
The previous year’s Israeli airstrikes had degraded Syrian and Iranian air defenses, disrupted weapons supply routes through Syria, and damaged Iran’s missile fuel production. Hezbollah, Tehran’s closest regional ally, has also suffered significant setbacks.
The fall of the Assad government in Syria further limited Iran’s ability to operate in the region.
Even so, Israeli officials acknowledge that any strike on nuclear targets would require full American support, not only for missile defense coverage but also to ensure operational success.
The United States has already begun deploying assets to the region. Two Patriot batteries and a THAAD missile system were relocated to bases in the Middle East. The aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson was positioned in the Arabian Sea. Meanwhile, B-2 bombers capable of carrying 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs were flown to Diego Garcia.
Inside the Trump administration, the possibility of supporting Israel’s plan has provoked sharp divisions.
According to a report by The New York Times, key officials, including CENTCOM Commander General Michael Kurilla and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, were open to the idea of American involvement.
However, President Donald Trump ultimately rejected the military option, choosing instead to pursue renewed nuclear negotiations with Tehran, even after having unilaterally scrapped the JCPOA during his first term.
“I think that Iran has a chance to have a great country and to live happily without death,” President Trump told reporters. “That’s my first option. If there’s a second option, I think it would be very bad for Iran, and I think Iran wants to talk,” he added.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal or the Iran deal, was an agreement that limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and other provisions.
In response, Prime Minister Netanyahu said he would only support a renewed nuclear agreement if it followed the model used in Libya in 2003, where U.S. forces physically dismantled that country’s nuclear infrastructure.
“The only agreement that works,” he said, “is one where American forces go in, dismantle the nuclear facilities, and remove the equipment themselves.”
Opposition To The JCPOA
Israel has consistently opposed the JCPOA. During the original negotiations in 2015 under President Obama, Netanyahu strongly criticized the deal, calling it dangerous and misguided.
Just weeks before the agreement was finalized, he delivered a speech to the U.S. Congress, denouncing the deal with fiery rhetoric. Despite his efforts, the deal was signed.
Since then, Israeli officials have maintained their opposition. They have routinely expressed skepticism about the deal’s enforcement mechanisms and warned that Iran was continuing to enrich uranium beyond the permitted limits.
When President Trump entered office in 2017, he encountered a Republican Party that was already deeply critical of the agreement. Within months, in May 2018, Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA, branding it “the worst deal ever.”
Now, however, the same administration is seeking to revive the deal, though under stricter terms. The White House is pushing for broader limits on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, while Tehran insists on the lifting of sanctions without additional concessions.
The current JCPOA negotiations remain fragile. A second round of talks was recently held in Rome, with a third scheduled in the coming weeks.
- Via: ET News Desk
- Mail us at: editor (at) eurasiantimes.com
