Almost all of Iran's missiles and drones that were launched overnight were successfully intercepted by Israeli forces, according to their military. The Iranian government claimed responsibility for the strike, saying it was retaliation for a two-week-old killing at an Iranian diplomatic facility in Syria.
How Israel chooses to react to the strike from yesterday night will determine the course of events going forward. Some nations in the area and beyond have called on Iran to exercise restraint because of its despotic government.
Iran's response is as follows: "Account settled, that is the end of the matter, do not hit back at us or we will mount a much stronger attack against you that you will not be able to ward off."
But Israel has promised "a significant response" and its current administration is typically characterized as the most conservative in the country's annals.
In the hours after the horrific strikes on southern Israel by Hamas on October 7, it pounded the Gaza Strip for the next six months. Despite Iran's targeted and limited impact on the ground, Israel's war cabinet is not going to let this direct strike go unanswered.
Thus, what choices does Israel have?
Iran may take a page out of its neighbors' playbook and practice "strategic patience" by refraining from retaliation while maintaining its long-standing campaign of targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon and military supply depots in Syria, two of its proxy allies in the area.
The missile facilities from which Iran fired yesterday night may be the only targets of a series of identical, precisely timed, long-range missile attacks by Israel in retaliation.
Since Israel has only previously targeted Iran's proxy militias in the area, a strike on Iran itself would be considered by Tehran as a significant step forward, and an escalation.
Alternately, Israel might take a step up the escalatory ladder by considering bases, training camps, and command and control centers owned by Iran's formidable Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as potential targets for its reaction.
The second and third choices also put us at danger of Iran retaliating much more.
Is the United States drawn into this, and a full-scale shooting conflict breaks out between Iranian and US troops in the region? That is the important issue.
The United nations maintains military bases in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and all six Arab Gulf nations.
Iran has amassed a huge arsenal of missiles, including ballistic missiles, despite international sanctions, and any one of these places may be a target.
In addition, as it has previously promised to do in the event of an assault, Iran may attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz, a strategically important waterway, by blocking it with explosives, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and other means, cutting off approximately 25% of the world's oil supply.
Involvement of the United nations and the Gulf nations in a conflict spanning the whole area is the worst-case scenario, which several countries are now attempting to prevent at all costs.
How Israel chooses to react to the strike from yesterday night will determine the course of events going forward. Some nations in the area and beyond have called on Iran to exercise restraint because of its despotic government.
Iran's response is as follows: "Account settled, that is the end of the matter, do not hit back at us or we will mount a much stronger attack against you that you will not be able to ward off."
But Israel has promised "a significant response" and its current administration is typically characterized as the most conservative in the country's annals.
In the hours after the horrific strikes on southern Israel by Hamas on October 7, it pounded the Gaza Strip for the next six months. Despite Iran's targeted and limited impact on the ground, Israel's war cabinet is not going to let this direct strike go unanswered.
Thus, what choices does Israel have?
Iran may take a page out of its neighbors' playbook and practice "strategic patience" by refraining from retaliation while maintaining its long-standing campaign of targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon and military supply depots in Syria, two of its proxy allies in the area.
The missile facilities from which Iran fired yesterday night may be the only targets of a series of identical, precisely timed, long-range missile attacks by Israel in retaliation.
Since Israel has only previously targeted Iran's proxy militias in the area, a strike on Iran itself would be considered by Tehran as a significant step forward, and an escalation.
Alternately, Israel might take a step up the escalatory ladder by considering bases, training camps, and command and control centers owned by Iran's formidable Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as potential targets for its reaction.
The second and third choices also put us at danger of Iran retaliating much more.
Is the United States drawn into this, and a full-scale shooting conflict breaks out between Iranian and US troops in the region? That is the important issue.
The United nations maintains military bases in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and all six Arab Gulf nations.
Iran has amassed a huge arsenal of missiles, including ballistic missiles, despite international sanctions, and any one of these places may be a target.
In addition, as it has previously promised to do in the event of an assault, Iran may attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz, a strategically important waterway, by blocking it with explosives, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and other means, cutting off approximately 25% of the world's oil supply.
Involvement of the United nations and the Gulf nations in a conflict spanning the whole area is the worst-case scenario, which several countries are now attempting to prevent at all costs.
