Military analyst David Sharp said the severity of Israel’s attack on Iran remains to be assessed, as perceptions of the damage may vary depending on each side of the conflict. He noted that in Western perception, the loss of even a single soldier is considered serious, while Iran may assess its losses differently.
Israeli military analyst David Sharp spoke about this in an interview with Novaya Gazeta Europe.
Israel refused to attack important nuclear and economic facilities, which, according to the expert, is explained by the desire to avoid a major war with Iran. Israel, it says, adheres to the principle that a military attack against Tehran’s nuclear facilities will only be resorted to if there is no alternative threat, for example if Iran begins active efforts to create nuclear weapons, such as enriching uranium to 90% or developing an explosive device. So far, no such measures have been recorded by Iran, and Israel prefers moderation, the analyst added.
American pressure also influenced Israel’s decision, as the United States was not prepared for escalation. Israel has taken a soft approach, even though Iran has carried out attacks and used proxy groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, but, according to the expert, the capabilities of these groups are significantly limited. He also emphasized that if Iran took decisive steps toward creating nuclear weapons, Israel could deal a much harder blow.
The expert noted that the attack lasted several hours and took place in three waves, targeting around twenty objects, including ballistic missile factories, air defense and aviation facilities. He added that Israel was satisfied with the intelligence that allowed it to carry out precision strikes, thus providing greater freedom of action in Iranian airspace.
For now, Israel has declared the attack over, but warned that it is prepared to expand the operation if Iran decides to respond. Iran’s first statements describe the damage as limited, which the expert said could be an attempt to save face or avoid escalation. The analyst suggested that Iran could be hiding the extent of the damage so as not to demonstrate vulnerability.
According to the expert, Israel was satisfied with the accuracy of the attacks, although the importance of the destroyed objects has not yet been assessed.
Previously, Kursor reported that Israel had chosen the “minimal escalation” option of attacking Iran.
