After scoring important points by blocking Iran’s attack, Israel should draw the right lessons from its success

The Iranian strike against Israel was a first of its kind. Its mere occurrence sets a precedent that will have a long-term impact and require Israel to weigh new considerations when planning future military operations against Iranian assets. But Israel’s success in largely blocking the massive stand-off barrage also provides strategic gains and sends an important message to adversaries and partners alike, which can play to the country’s benefit.

For Israelis, the Iranian attack was a big unknown — a novel threat with unclear damage potential. It was also a new type of war-time experience, forcing the population to wait hours in uncertainty from the time the strike was launched until the first missiles and drones reached Israel’s borders. In comparison, rockets fired from Lebanon and Gaza arrive within minutes. Pre-attack scenarios were varied, spanning a range of estimates as to the likely loss of life and damage to property.

The anticipatory period for the attack, which lasted for more than a week after Tehran announced its intention to retaliate, unsettled Israelis' daily lives and caused widespread concern. Nevertheless, military-wise — Iran’s attack was a failure. The incoming projectiles were blocked, with nearly 100% of the more than 300 drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles sent from Iran reportedly intercepted. Israel and its allies were well prepared and successfully implemented their pre-defined defensive plans.

This provides major reassurances for Israel for the future, illustrating that it has the upper hand over Iran in weathering such attacks. But Israel notably did not succeed on its own. The United States convincingly delivered when it came to helping secure Israel. The United Kingdom and France also did their important share, and so did some Arab countries. This experience underscores the need for Israel to invest more in strengthening its foreign relations and strategic ties, in its immediate region and beyond, which will require also adopting moderate and more pro-peace policies on the Palestinian issue.

The success in defending against the Iranian attack was a collective effort, proving that even in times of conflict — including amidst harsh international criticism over Israel’s actions in Gaza — joint regional and geopolitical interests are still very much in play, governments seek to sustain their bilateral relations, and Israel’s alliances and partnerships in the Middle East and the West are resilient and effective. The undeclared and unofficial regional security alliance, involving Israel, the US and several key Arab states has, thus, become public, which sends a strong message to Iran and others in the Middle East.

The role of Jordan was especially noteworthy. It played a crucial and active role in helping Israel foil the Iranian drone attack, though publicly it framed the effort as intended to protect its own sovereign airspace. This action could not have been taken for granted a priori given Jordan’s strong criticism of Israel during the war in Gaza and the recent rise in nightly anti-Israeli demonstrations in the proximity of the Israeli embassy in Amman.  

The strategic importance of peace agreements and regional alignments has become very evident to Israelis, and this should be kept in mind as Israel seeks a way out of the war in Gaza and the ongoing escalation with Hezbollah. However, a large number of Israelis doubt Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can pave the way for a constructive post-war regional reality. Ever since Oct. 7, most Israelis want early elections to take place.

Netanyahu’s conduct in the lead-up to and during the Iranian strike — including his decision to spend the weekend at the private residence of a friend who has an advanced bunker, combined with his inability to engage effectively with the Israeli public at a time of crisis — reflects the same Oct. 7-related leadership failures that are likely to reinforce public dissatisfaction with him.

Israel now faces a tough decision of how to respond to the Iranian attack. The US is trying to prevent it from taking action that could lead to further regional escalation. There is also a growing number of key Israeli public figures who call on the government to refrain from any immediate, fierce military action against Iran (as demanded by the far-right).

They are calling on Israel to leverage its military and diplomatic win against the Iranian attack and utilize it to somehow reverse the negative trend in Israel’s standing among Western governments, and to further consolidate a regional anti-Iranian axis. Instead of a cycle of tit-for-tat military actions with Iran, which will complicate things further for Israel and the region, Israel should seek a more creative and sophisticated way to respond, perhaps at a later stage and in line with previous covert operations it took against Iran, which will better serve its national interest.  

While focusing on Iran, Israel should also not lose sight of the other fronts it is currently fighting. It should do the utmost to secure the release of its hostages from the hands of Hamas as well as create conditions that would allow displaced Israelis to return safely to their homes in the country’s south and north. Israel’s strategic goals should be to advance a two-state solution with the Palestinians, in a reversal of the policies of its current government. Such a course of action will enable Israel’s regional alliances to expand and deepen, and it will allow Israel to secure additional normalization agreements — including, critically, with Saudi Arabia — so it can pursue enhanced regional integration and an even stronger regional security alliance.

Dr. Nimrod Goren is the Senior Fellow for Israeli Affairs at the Middle East Institute, President of Mitvim - The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies, and Co-Founder of Diplomeds - The Council for Mediterranean Diplomacy.

Photo by Israeli Ministry of Defense / Handout / Anadolu via Getty Images