Hours after Iranian missiles struck Israel on October 1, the Biden conveyed an urgent message to Israel: Remain calm. Washington emphasized that Israel controlled the timeline and had the opportunity to carefully consider its response to an Iranian assault that U.S. intelligence suggested could have resulted in significant casualties had Israel, with American military assistance, not successfully countered the attack from its longstanding adversary.

Officials were concerned that such a large-scale Iranian offensive could provoke a swift and forceful Israeli reaction, potentially escalating tensions in the Middle East just weeks before the U.S. presidential election. This narrative, provided by current and former U.S. officials, outlines how the United States aimed to guide Israel’s actions during the three weeks leading up to its military response on Saturday, which involved airstrikes more focused on military objectives than initially anticipated by Washington.

Key Iranian air defense and missile production facilities were significantly damaged, thereby diminishing Iran’s military capabilities. However, crucially, Iran’s sensitive nuclear sites and energy infrastructure were left untouched, aligning with President Biden’s primary objectives.

Jonathan Panikoff, a former deputy U.S. national intelligence officer for the Middle East, emphasized the importance of U.S. pressure in this context. He noted that Israeli strategic choices would have been markedly different without the Biden administration’s influence to refrain from targeting nuclear or energy installations.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuted the notion that U.S. pressure influenced Israel’s decision to spare Iranian gas and oil facilities. He asserted that Israel selected its attack targets based on its national interests rather than American directives.

The Biden administration’s initial response was to recognize that Iran would face repercussions for the October 1 attack. A senior official from the administration stated, “In the hours following that attack, we committed to imposing serious consequences on Iran.”

U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has engaged in approximately a dozen discussions with his Israeli counterpart, Yoav Gallant, since October 1. Austin, a retired four-star Army general, and Gallant have deliberated on potential responses to recent events. A U.S. official noted, “We were aware they were preparing for action, and he advocated for a proportional response.”

In the aftermath of Iran’s attack on October 1, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, along with other senior officials, reached out to European and Arab allies. He communicated that while Israel needed to respond, the U.S. was actively working to ensure that response was measured.

The question remains: what constitutes a proportional response that would effectively deter further Iranian aggression? Although the October 1 strike resulted in only one fatality—a Palestinian who died from falling debris—many of the missiles launched by Iran were not intercepted by Israeli or U.S. air defense systems.

Jeffrey Lewis, a non-proliferation expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, indicated that satellite imagery analysis revealed at least 30 impacts at Israel’s Nevatim Airbase. This could imply that Israel was either attempting to conserve its limited air defense resources or believed that repairing the fortified facility would be more cost-effective than intercepting each missile launched by Iran. Lewis remarked, “Israel may have concluded that their stockpiles were depleting or that the cost of interceptors for ballistic missiles was prohibitive.”

Biden took steps to enhance Israel’s air defenses

Initially, when discussions began between the administration and Israeli officials, potential targets included Iran’s nuclear and oil facilities, according to a U.S. official. However, it was emphasized that Israel had not made a final decision regarding these targets. In response, U.S. officials sought to present an alternative strategy that involved various measures. This included efforts to impose oil sanctions aimed at Iran’s so-called “Ghost Fleet,” providing the Israelis with a non-military option to undermine Iran’s oil revenues.

A senior official from the Biden administration indicated that the U.S. took steps to enhance Israel’s air defenses prior to its planned strike on Iran. This involved the rare deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to Israel, accompanied by approximately 100 U.S. personnel to operate the system. Before this deployment, the U.S. sought clarity on Israel’s attack plans.

On October 9, President Biden spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu, which allowed the U.S. to gain insight into Israel’s intended response and facilitated the deployment of THAAD, according to officials. As Iran issued warnings that its supporters could be targeted in retaliation for any Israeli action, Gulf states reiterated their stance of neutrality.

Saudi Arabia has been particularly cautious about potential Iranian attacks on its oil infrastructure, especially following a 2019 assault on its Abqaiq refinery that temporarily disrupted over 5% of the global oil supply, an incident Iran denied involvement in. To address Israel’s intent to retaliate against Iran’s oil sector, the Biden administration implemented sanctions, including an expansion of U.S. sanctions on Iran’s petroleum and petrochemical industries on October 11.

Additionally, the administration encouraged European allies to impose penalties on Iran Air, while simultaneously deploying the THAAD system as a deterrent, demonstrating U.S. support for Israel as a crucial component of this alternative strategy.

The administration contended that this approach would remain a significant deterrent and effectively impose costs on Iran, all while avoiding a broader conflict in the region that Washington believes Israel is not seeking, according to officials.

NUCLEAR NO-GO

In what many analysts interpreted as a warning to Iran, the U.S. military executed a strike against the Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen using long-range B-2 stealth bombers. At that time, Austin emphasized that the strike showcased the Pentagon’s capability to target facilities that are difficult to access, regardless of how deeply they are buried or fortified. Amid rising speculation about a potential Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Washington conveyed to Israel that it could rely on U.S. support if Tehran ever decided to pursue nuclear weapons, a scenario that U.S. intelligence does not currently believe is in play.

Now is not the appropriate moment.

“The underlying message was that if Israel seeks U.S. assistance in targeting such sites in the future, they would need to adopt a more measured approach this time,” Panikoff noted. For Blinken, a carefully calibrated Israeli response to Iran could create opportunities for long-sought diplomatic objectives in a region already destabilized by a year-long conflict in Gaza between Israel and Iran-backed Hamas, as well as an intensifying war involving Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah, another ally of Iran. During his recent visit to the Middle East, Blinken informed Arab foreign ministers that discussions with Israel had progressed to a point where Israel would focus solely on military targets. He also conveyed that Iran should refrain from any further provocations, a message he hoped would reach Tehran.

On Sunday, following the recent attack, both Israel and Iran refrained from indicating any intention to escalate the situation further. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu asserted that the airstrikes effectively targeted Iran’s defense capabilities and missile production facilities. In contrast, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei cautioned against overstating the impact of the attack that occurred on Saturday.

While the future of de-escalation between Israel and Iran remains uncertain, U.S. officials have indicated that the Biden administration has made significant efforts to break the ongoing cycle of direct confrontations that began in April. A senior official from the Biden administration stated, “If Iran opts to retaliate again, we will be prepared, and there will be repercussions for Iran. Nonetheless, we hope to avoid such a scenario.”

Biden’s approach to restraining Israel has faced criticism, particularly from opposition Republicans in the U.S., including Congressman Mike Turner, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee. Turner expressed to Fox News that the administration’s actions have restricted Israel’s capacity to effectively counter Iran’s threats.

Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, noted that the ongoing exchanges of strikes may paradoxically increase Israel’s risk tolerance. He suggested that if former President Donald Trump were to win the presidential election on November 5, Israel might actively seek further opportunities, having demonstrated their capability to significantly damage Iran’s air defense systems.