Israel Planned Iran Attack, US Stopped It, Experts Question Strategy

By ליאור בן ארי

Translated & summarized from Ynet by baba

CenterCharged tone

Hebrew · 14 newsrooms covering

Israel reportedly planned to attack Iranian civilian infrastructure on October 10th but was stopped by U.S. President Donald Trump, according to the Financial Times. Experts question the strategic necessity of such an attack, noting past conflicts failed to achieve their goals. Dani Sitrinovitz, a former IDF intelligence official, called the timing "madness," especially before elections, and warned of severe regional consequences. He also criticized the potential mixing of political and strategic considerations in military planning.

The story in 5 lines · by baba

Israel planned to attack Iranian civilian infrastructure on October 10th but was stopped by U.S. President Donald Trump.
Experts question the strategic rationale for an attack, citing past failures to achieve objectives against Iran.
Dani Sitrinovitz called a potential preemptive strike "madness," especially two weeks before Israeli elections.
A new conflict with Iran could ignite a wider regional war involving proxies and disrupt the global economy.
There is concern that political considerations are influencing Israel's strategic decisions regarding Iran.

Israel Planned Iran Attack, US Stopped It, Experts Question Strategy — Editorial illustration generated by baba News, not a photograph of the event.

A report in the Financial Times indicated that Israel had planned to attack Iranian civilian infrastructure, including power plants and nuclear facilities, on October 10th, but was halted by U.S. President Donald Trump. This raises questions about the strategic rationale for such an action, especially given that previous wars with Iran have not achieved their objectives, such as toppling the regime or preventing its continued armament.

Dani Sitrinovitz, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) and former head of the Iran desk at IDF Intelligence Directorate's Research Division, stated that there is no justification for a war with Iran at this time, either before or after upcoming Israeli elections. He noted that Iran is rebuilding its missile capabilities but has not shown indications of returning to enriching uranium. Sitrinovitz questioned the strategic goal of another war, suggesting that targeting energy facilities would not bring down the regime and could lead to a broad Iranian response.

Sitrinovitz further argued that past conflicts with Iran have not led to the regime's fall or halted its capability development. He warned that a new attack would have severe international consequences, potentially igniting the entire Gulf region. He criticized the idea of a preemptive strike, especially two weeks before elections, calling it "madness" and highlighting that Iran is not on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. He also pointed out that Iran's missile capabilities have not returned to pre-conflict levels.

Regarding the U.S. midterm elections, Sitrinovitz suggested Iran aims to influence their outcome, potentially to cause Trump's defeat. He mentioned that Iran is open to returning to a deal but under conditions Trump might not accept. He also commented on reports of Israeli fighter jets flying over Iraq and Syria towards Iran as part of a military exercise, calling it a dangerous move that could provoke Iran into firing first, thus providing Israel with a pretext for retaliation.

Sitrinovitz emphasized the danger of mixing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's political considerations with Israel's strategic interests, warning that any war with Iran would paralyze the Israeli economy and lead to a regional conflict involving groups like the Houthis, militias in Iraq, and Hezbollah. He stressed the need to analyze past failures before launching new military operations, especially when there is no immediate operational need.