After 15 Jews were murdered in the terror attack at Bondi Beach, more voices are talking about potential direct IDF responses to terror attacks against Jews on foreign soil.
In July, former Prime Minister’s Office counter-terror official and INSS fellow Yoram Schweitzer called for considering such kinetic responses to terror attacks against Jews and Israelis abroad.
On Sunday, a senior US official told Fox News that, if the Australia attack was ordered by Iran, Washington would fully support a direct Israeli counterstrike on Iranian territory.
Early reports have emphasized the two terrorists’ ISIS connections and not necessarily Iranian involvement, but the point could hold, with Israel taking the liberty to strike top ISIS officials hiding in Syria.
When Schweitzer called for direct military responses instead of covert, diplomatic, or legal responses to such terror, he could point to greater vulnerability on the part of the Islamic Republic in addition to the strategic reasons for such a shift.
Schweitzer wrote, “Given that the measures taken thus far by Israel and other nations have failed to deter Iran from employing terrorism, there may be grounds to consider kinetic responses – at least in cases where Iran successfully executes major terrorist attacks.
Iran's provocations after June war
“Until now, international responses to Iran’s terrorist activities have remained primarily within the legal and diplomatic spheres, alongside economic sanctions targeting individuals and entities involved in terrorism,” stated Schweitzer.
However, he added that, “In light of Israel’s recent willingness to respond directly to Iranian provocations – demonstrated following the UAV attack in April 2024 and the missile attack in October [2024] – it may be worth considering kinetic responses to terrorist attacks initiated and executed by Iran.
“Naturally, such actions should be weighed carefully against potential Iranian retaliatory measures. It is also advisable to encourage other nations to adopt a more assertive stance against Iranian terrorism, given the failures of the prevailing policies,” Schweitzer recommended.
All of that was in July. As the report failed to mention Israel’s massive strike on Iran in June, it is clear that the report was written before that attack took place.
In June, Israel prevailed against Iran’s radars, air defenses, nuclear program, top commanders, and ballistic missile threats. As such, Schweitzer’s idea, seconded on Sunday by a senior US official, is more realistic than ever.
In pre-war 2023, there was no way that Israel would have openly struck Iranian territory in response to a “mere” terror attack against Jews and Israelis abroad. The risk of a calamitous Iranian response was viewed as too high.
Iran remains the greatest threat to Israel with its large arsenal of ballistic missiles. But it is nowhere near the threat it was before this past June, let alone in pre-war 2023.
Before, if Israel were the first to strike Iran directly, no one doubted that Tehran would have responded with a full ballistic missile onslaught.
Yet now Iran knows that if it tried to do this, Israel might prevent it from doing so and cause billions of dollars of additional damage to Iran’s military, including killing many of the new Iranian commanders who replaced the former 30 or so whom the IDF already killed.
Former Iranian president Hassan Rouhani has reportedly stated that, even six months after the Israeli attack, the Islamic Republic’s air defenses remain woefully inadequate to compete against Israeli airpower.
With that kind of fear and deterrence, Israel truly might be able to risk openly striking Iran, or ISIS, for that matter, in response to terror attacks in other countries.
This could pierce Iran’s strategic plausible deniability doctrine and make it think twice about such terror attacks.
In contrast, Schweitzer’s report said that since 2020, Iran has been almost constantly increasing the volume and diversity of its attempts to kill Jews and Israelis abroad, expanding to nearly every continent.
Schweitzer also wrote that, “In recent years, Iran has not only relied on criminal entities for financing its operations and supporting its proxy organizations, but has also engaged them as direct executors of terrorist attacks. This trend has been evident in attempted attacks in Germany, Sweden, and Turkey.”
Bottom line, the Islamic Republic has not merely been keeping terror attacks worldwide against Jews and Israelis at prior levels, it has been regularly increasing them. The Islamic Republic has also shown more brazen tactics, roping in criminal groups to do their dirty work and to cover their tracks.
All of this ties back into the ballistic missile threat from Tehran.
Israel pushed back Iran’s nuclear program to two years from a weapon in June, and the ayatollahs have made no real attempt at rehabilitating that threat since then. However, Jerusalem cannot sit on its laurels and must keep a heavy watch on the nuclear program.
But the most immediate threat is Iran pushing ahead with rehabilitating its ballistic missile threat, and even seeking to significantly expand that threat so that it can overwhelm Israel’s missile shield.
Could Israel nail two birds with one stone? Use a terror attack by Iran to strike back at both the masterminds and at the ballistic missile program?
The Jewish state does not want to remain in constant war with Iran. This would be dangerous and destructive to both sides, even if Israel came out on top in relative terms.
But Israel may have entered a period when it is possible to alter the rules of the terror game, to press Iran and others to reduce their attacks on Jews and Israelis abroad, lest they face a harsh response on their own turf.