Dr. Dalal Erekat: Israel’s delay in responding to Iran is due to complex strategic calculations linked to sensitive regional and international balances

Daoud Kuttab: The gap between Netanyahu’s ambitions, geopolitical reality and international support is a decisive factor in thwarting his plans regarding Iran

Fayez Abbas: Attack on Iran would be much more dangerous than previous Israeli military responses to Hamas or Hezbollah

Major General Wasef Erekat: Israel faces advanced Iranian capabilities versus weaker capabilities of its own, which makes the decision to strike more complicated

Hani Abu Al-Sabaa: The United States seeks to maintain a level of escalation that does not lead to a large-scale conflict

Ramallah - Exclusive to Al-Quds

The delay in the Israeli response to the recent Iranian attacks raises questions about the motives and complex strategic plans behind it, and whether Israel has retreated or is there American rejection of it?

In separate interviews with “I,” writers, analysts, specialists, and university professors indicate that Israel is dealing with such an escalation with extreme caution, driven by sensitive regional and international calculations that include political and military balances in the region.

They point out that considerations related to relations with the United States and Europe, in addition to possible reactions from regional countries such as Turkey and the Gulf states, play a pivotal role in delaying the response, and it seems that Israel seeks to achieve maximum readiness and ensure international cover before carrying out any military operation against Iran, while cyber attacks and advanced technology remain part of its strategy.

Complex strategic calculations

Dr. Dalal Erekat, Professor of Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at the Arab American University, explains that the Israeli delay in responding to the Iranian attack may reflect complex strategic calculations related to sensitive regional and international balances.

Erekat points out that Israel, from a diplomatic perspective, deals with every escalation with a sensitive balance, not limited only to military considerations, but also includes the positions of the major countries and regional powers surrounding it.

Erekat believes that Israel is not seeking an uncalculated escalation that could lead to a long-term conflict and upset the balance in the region, so the Israeli decision regarding a military response depends on careful calculations that include relations with the United States, Europe, and Arab countries, as well as possible reactions from regional powers, such as Turkey and the Gulf states.

The Israeli goal of the delay, according to Erekat, may sometimes be to keep the doors open to diplomatic solutions or to allow enough time for negotiations through back channels.

She points out that Israel has mastered the art of procrastination as a means of gaining time, which strengthens its position on the ground, and the Israeli response goes beyond being a mere military reaction, but rather constitutes a political and strategic message both internally and externally.

Erekat believes that the Israeli moves take into account the repercussions of any reaction from the Iranian side, and seek to ensure that the response is decisive and thoughtful, while maintaining the ability to deter without inciting strong Iranian reactions.

Israel exploits Iran's 'threat' to strengthen regional and international alliances

Erekat points out that Israel is exploiting the Iranian threat to strengthen its regional and international alliances, especially in light of the ongoing settlement project.

Regarding Israel's use of artificial intelligence, Erekat confirms that Israel uses it as an advanced tool in its strategic and defensive planning, as artificial intelligence works qualitatively in identifying targets and carrying out cyber operations that are used to disable Iranian defense systems or target its vital infrastructure.

Erekat sees these cyber attacks as part of a broader approach to achieving military and diplomatic goals without being drawn into a full-scale conflict.

Regarding the US position on responding to the Iranian attack, Erekat clarifies that America is neither absolutely opposed to nor fully supportive of any Israeli response to Iran.

According to Erekat, although the United States supports Israel's right to defend itself, and sometimes provides intelligence or technological assistance to ensure the accuracy of the Israeli response, it remains wary of any major escalation that could destabilize the region and affect its strategic interests, such as protecting oil pipelines and containing Russian and Chinese influence.

Erekat stresses that the Israeli approach to dealing with the escalation against Iran is characterised by complexity and caution, as Israel is keen to ensure that any future steps are thoughtful and balanced within the framework of regional and international balances.

The gap between Netanyahu's words and actions is becoming clear.

The writer and political analyst Daoud Kuttab explains that the gap between the words and actions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has become clear, pointing out that Netanyahu seeks to drag the United States into a confrontation with Iran, similar to what happened with former US President George Bush when he led a war against Iraq with Netanyahu’s involvement after he declared before the US Congress that the Middle East would enjoy peace if Saddam Hussein was eliminated.

Writers point out that with America's announcement of its categorical refusal to participate in any attack against Iran, Netanyahu began looking for alternative ways to achieve the same goal.

Writers believe that the gap between Netanyahu's ambitions, geopolitical reality and international support may be the decisive factor in thwarting his plans regarding Iran.

Writers confirm that Netanyahu's interest is not focused on the calculations of a military response as much as he is interested in involving the United States in a confrontation with Iran.

As for the talk about Israel preparing a strong military response, writers explain that any country that has military departments develops different plans and projects, and Israel is no exception, but the biggest challenge it faces is the geographical distance from Iran, in addition to the United States’ rejection, and the Gulf states and Jordan refuse to allow Israel to use their lands or waters for military purposes that serve Netanyahu’s “daydreams.”

On the other hand, writers point out that artificial intelligence will not be the solution to the major challenges facing Israel, whether logistically or politically, or those related to Washington’s refusal to participate in a regional war.

Will America be satisfied with the opposition?

In addition, writers explain that the position of the United States is clear, as it strictly opposes any attack on Iran, but the question that arises is: Will America be satisfied with opposition, or is it able and willing to prevent Israel from carrying out a military attack?

In this context, writers believe that the United States has the ability to prevent Israel from launching any attack, but it may not want to do so explicitly, preferring to provide strong advice to Israel regarding the repercussions of such an attack.

More importantly, according to the writers, is that American advice is not limited to opposing the Israeli attack before it happens, but may also extend to refusing to provide support to Israel during and after the attack is carried out, which puts Tel Aviv in an awkward position if it decides to escalate without full coordination with Washington.

Israel's delay is not a coincidence

Israeli affairs expert Fayez Abbas believes that Israel's delay in responding to Iran is not a coincidence, but rather is linked to several main factors, the most important of which is the pursuit of full readiness and ensuring international cover to protect it from Iranian missiles and those of its allies.

According to Abbas, Israel is working around the clock to strike Iran, targeting its nuclear facilities and oil and gas facilities, but it realizes that this attack requires broad support from the United States and some European countries, as well as Arab cooperation to ensure protection from any retaliatory attacks that might hit strategic sites in Israel.

Abbas points out that an attack on Iran would be much more dangerous than previous Israeli military responses to Hamas or Hezbollah, with Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant stating that the Israeli response to Iran would be “deadly and surprising” to the point that Tehran would not be able to absorb it.

However, Abbas stresses that Netanyahu will not move without the full partnership and support of the United States, which is Israel's most prominent ally in this conflict.

On the other hand, Abbas explains that Israel seeks to exploit all available means, including advanced technology, artificial intelligence, and even internationally banned weapons, to carry out a devastating and intensive strike against Iran. This strike, according to Netanyahu’s vision, represents a historic opportunity to achieve a goal he has been seeking for many years, which is to drag the United States into a comprehensive war against Iran and destroy its nuclear facilities.

Abbas believes that if Netanyahu succeeds, he will consider this his greatest political achievement, as he will regain his strength and popularity at the expense of Iranian blood, especially after his failure to achieve his goals in Gaza and Lebanon so far.

He points out that the United States will be the main partner in any attack on Iran, whether through providing military support or direct participation in bombing or potential military operations, stressing that the American-Israeli partnership will be decisive in determining the fate of any future confrontation with Tehran.

Netanyahu has been threatening since 2008

Retired Major General Wassef Erekat, a strategic military and security expert, explains that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been threatening to strike Iran’s nuclear reactors since 2008, but these threats have not materialized, despite the opportunity being presented several times, especially during the war on the Gaza Strip and the subsequent regional tension that extended to Iran.

Erekat attributes this to Netanyahu’s inability to make a decision of this magnitude without American approval, noting that the decline in Israeli deterrence was clear after the failure of the Israeli military, security and intelligence system to confront the Palestinian resistance attack on October 7, which caused Netanyahu to lose the initiative.

Erekat asserts that the Israeli leadership, which used to make its decisions unilaterally in the past, now relies more on coordination with the American leadership. This is considered evidence that Israel has become in dire need of American support, which was confirmed by the continued statements of the Israeli leadership about the necessity of coordination with Washington.

Erekat refers to the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981, when Israeli F-16 fighters, accompanied by F-15 aircraft, struck the reactor without informing the administration of then-US President Ronald Reagan until after the attack had been carried out.

Erekat explains that Israeli calculations today are completely different from that era, as Israel faces advanced Iranian capabilities versus weaker capabilities of its own, which makes taking a decision to strike Iran more complicated.

Crazy Israeli leadership

Commenting on the current situation, Major General Erekat described the Israeli leadership as “crazy,” as Israeli General Yitzhak Brick described it, referring to figures such as Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Galant, and Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi.

Erekat believes that this leadership may make ill-considered decisions that may lead to unwanted escalations, especially in light of the major changes in Iranian military capabilities.

Regarding the use of artificial intelligence in potential Israeli military operations against Iran, Erekat explains that this technology has positive aspects in the fields of reconnaissance, surveillance, and intelligence data analysis, as well as in identifying a target bank. Artificial intelligence can also be used in autonomous weapons to reduce reliance on the human element. However, there are significant risks related to non-compliance with international law, as artificial intelligence may not be able to differentiate between military and civilian targets, which could lead to unintended casualties and unexpected escalations.

Israel needs American military, security and intelligence support

Erekat stresses that Israel is in dire need of military, security and intelligence support from the United States, especially with regard to long-range B-52 heavy bombers. Israel also needs close cooperation with Washington in all stages of planning and implementing any potential strike against Iran, in addition to logistical and intelligence support.

However, the biggest challenge, according to Erekat, is the political cover that Israel needs to carry out such operations, which may be difficult to achieve in light of the current political situation in the United States, as the country approaches the presidential elections.

Erekat explains that coordination between Israel and the United States also includes sharing the potential consequences of any attack, which puts Washington in a complex position, as it wants to curb Iran's influence in the region without getting involved in a major conflict that could affect the stability of the region, while the United States remains hesitant to provide full support to Israel at this sensitive stage.

Multiple factors delay Israeli response

The writer, political analyst and specialist in Israeli affairs, Hani Abu Al-Sabaa, points to several reasons behind Israel’s delay in responding to Iran, despite repeated threats from the Israeli political and military leadership that the response is coming and will be deterrent. According to observers, the delay is based on several factors related to geographical, political and military considerations.

Abu Al-Sabaa explains that the reasons for the delay in the Israeli response to the Iranian attack include: First, it may be due to the geographical factor, as there is a distance of more than a thousand kilometers between Israel and Iran, which poses a major challenge to the Israeli military capabilities in carrying out an attack on distant targets deep inside Iranian territory. In addition, Israel faces another difficulty, which is the vast area of Iran, as its nuclear and military facilities are spread out in scattered locations, some of which are up to 600 kilometers deep inside the country, which increases the difficulty of targeting them accurately.

Secondly, according to Abu Al-Sabaa, there is information from inside Iran indicating that the Islamic Republic carried out a nuclear test in the desert that caused a 4-magnitude earthquake, which further complicates the situation and raises questions about the extent of Iran’s progress in its nuclear program. This information may be an additional reason for delaying the Israeli response, as it requires new recalculations regarding Iranian capabilities.

The third reason, Abu Al-Sabaa believes, is that Israeli-American coordination was slow, as contact between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Joe Biden only recently took place, which is crucial for any Israeli move towards Iran, especially since the United States opposes bombing Iranian nuclear reactors, and without coordination with Washington, Israel will not be able to carry out the attack alone.

As for the fourth reason, Abu Al-Sabaa believes that the Russian factor played a role in delaying the response, as Moscow provided Iran with advanced air defense systems, which increases Tehran’s ability to confront any potential Israeli air attack.

On the other hand, Abu Al-Sabaa points out that there are increasing calls in Israel for a military response to Iran during Yom Kippur, which falls on the 12th of this month, but this option carries great risks, as it may lead to a mutual military escalation that may develop into a long war.

$68 billion is the cost of the war in its first year

Abu Al-Sabaa points to the statements of the Governor of the Israeli Central Bank, which indicate that the cost of the war in its first year has reached 68 billion dollars, which means that Israel is not ready to bear the burdens of a long war, neither militarily nor economically.

On the other hand, Abu Al-Sabaa points to what Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant confirmed that any Iranian response would be unexpected, while the Iranian president announced that his country is not seeking escalation, but is ready for a major response if necessary. The deputy commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard also warned that Israel could be “wiped off the map” if it decided to strike Iran, which increases tensions and mutual threats between the two sides.

On another level, Abu Al-Sabaa points out that there is talk within Israeli circles about using a technological response as an alternative to direct armed confrontation, and US President Joe Biden hinted at this option when he said that if he were in Israel’s place, he would consider an “alternative response.”

Technology and Cyber Attacks as a Means of Responding to Iran

Abu Al-Sabaa points out that the incident of disrupting train traffic in Israel a week ago may be part of this trend towards using technology and cyber attacks as a means of responding to Iran without being drawn into a large-scale military confrontation.

Regarding the American position, Abu Al-Sabaa believes that the United States seeks to manage the crisis between Israel and Iran without becoming a direct party to it. The United States realizes that Israel cannot carry out any military response without American support, and at the same time Washington seeks to contain Iranian influence in the region without being dragged into a comprehensive war.

According to Abu Al-Sabaa, therefore, the United States is working to maintain a level of escalation that does not lead to the outbreak of a large-scale war, but rather to manage the crisis in a way that ensures that it does not escalate to an uncontrollable extent.

Abu Al-Sabaa believes that Israel faces a major challenge; if it does not respond to Iran, it will appear weak in the face of its enemies, and if it decides to respond, it will open the door to an uncalculated escalation that may include a barrage of Iranian missiles, which will increase the complications that Israel faces in making a decisive decision on how to deal with Tehran.