Small strikes against any IRGC personnel stationed outside Iran - they’re fair game and on the table. We’re already seeing this with the strikes on Damascus and throughout Lebanon.
Also - based on the saber rattling and talking heads, it sounds like there are likely to be three potential targets: the dams, which would cause massive domestic economic damage to Iran; the oil facilities, which would cause massive economic damage to the Iranian regime; finally, known nuclear sites, which are in line with Israeli rhetoric about preventing Iranian nuclear ambitions.
I think cooler heads will prevail and the dams won’t be targeted, and without a regional coalition committed to a ground invasion with a goal of regime change, attacking the nuclear facilities won’t have the strategic impact that’s desired. Which leaves the oil refineries - there’s a natural bottleneck for Iranian oil production/export so there’s a short list of physical areas that need to be attacked for it to be effective.
Thinking on it further, IRGC headquarters should also be on the table. I don’t think it’s likely, but if it succeeds (and it’s likely to succeed - especially with direct US support) then it’s a huge win. But even if it does succeed I don’t see it leading to real regime change in Iran, so without that strategic impact it’s far less likely.
Also - based on the saber rattling and talking heads, it sounds like there are likely to be three potential targets: the dams, which would cause massive domestic economic damage to Iran;
I don’t think that a dam will be targeted, at least if it’s got a full reservoir behind it. That got banned in the Geneva Conventions, if I recall.
checks
Yeah, “Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II)”
Article 15 - Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces
Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.
And Israel’s a party to that treaty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_II
Russia’s also a party to that treaty and blew up the Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine recently, so it’s not as if it’s never been violated, but I don’t expect that Israel would.
the oil facilities, which would cause massive economic damage to the Iranian regime
There was some US senator advocating for the US bombing Iran’s oil refineries the other day. Lindsey Graham, I believe. And I posted an article talking about potential oil disruption out of Iran, though that might have been crude oil extraction rather than refinement.
attacking the nuclear facilities won’t have the strategic impact that’s desired.
Wouldn’t be the first time, though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
Operation Opera (Hebrew: מִבְצָע אוֹפֵּרָה),[1] also known as Operation Babylon,[2] was a surprise airstrike conducted by the Israeli Air Force on 7 June 1981, which destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor located 17 kilometres (11 miles) southeast of Baghdad, Iraq.[3][4][5] The Israeli operation came a year after the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force had caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility in Operation Scorch Sword, with the damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians. Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it, established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in Israel”. Israel’s counter-proliferation preventive strike added another dimension to its existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it related to the nuclear weapons capability of other states in the region.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begin_Doctrine
The Begin doctrine is the common term for the Israeli government’s preventive strike, counter-proliferation policy regarding their potential enemies’ capability to possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD), particularly nuclear weapons.
The roots of this doctrine can be tracked at least to Operation Damocles at the beginning of 1960s. Secret and diplomatic operations against the Iraqi nuclear program were started by the Yitzhak Rabin government in the mid-1970s.
The doctrine itself was enunciated by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in June 1981, following Israel’s attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor Osirak in Operation Opera. The doctrine remains a feature of Israeli security planning.[1] The initial government statement on the incident stated: “On no account shall we permit an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against the people of Israel. We shall defend the citizens of Israel in good time and with all the means at our disposal.”[2]
On June 15, in a television interview on Face the Nation, Begin reiterated this doctrinal point: “This attack will be a precedent for every future government in Israel. … Every future Israeli prime minister will act, in similar circumstances, in the same way.”[3]
The doctrine also has been used since 2009, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with regard to Iran and its nuclear capability. During this time the Iranian nuclear issue openly turned into Israel’s number one security issue.
And there are a lot of countries, not just Israel, unhappy about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. So I imagine that it wouldn’t be a terribly controversial target, and wouldn’t have much by way of direct negative effects on other parties.
EDIT: Yeah, it was Graham on the oil refineries:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-us-prepared-israel-defend-iranian-attack/story?id=114393069
One of the first reactions from Capitol Hill came from South Republican GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, who called Iran’s missile attack on Israel a “breaking point” and called for a response.
“I would urge the Biden Administration to coordinate an overwhelming response with Israel, starting with Iran’s ability to refine oil,” Graham said in a statement. He called for oil refineries to be “hit and hit hard.”
EDIT2: Biden said that his administration wouldn’t support a strike on Iran’s nuclear sites:
Asked whether the U.S. would back any Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, Biden told reporters: “The answer is no.”
Biden said more sanctions would be imposed on Iran and that he would speak soon with Netanyahu.
“Obviously, Iran is way off course,” he said.
EDIT3:
Unnamed Israeli officials have told local media that the country could respond to the ballistic missile attack by striking strategic infrastructure, such as gas or oil rigs, or by directly targeting Iran’s nuclear sites.
Targeted assassinations and attacks on Iran’s air defense systems are also possible responses, Axios reported.
But an Israeli official told The Times of Israel that the attack would be designed to cause “significant financial damage” to Iran. That seems to indicate that Israel would target Iran’s oil facilities, a key component of the country’s struggling economy. Oil revenues make up around 20 percent of GDP, and the economy’s fortune rises and falls with the oil exports.
EDIT4:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/biden-iran-israel-influence-limits-00182172
Biden added that sanctions would be imposed on Iran. Aides said that the U.S. was extensively communicating with Israel about a response, which could include a military strike, the officials said. Among the possible options under consideration are strikes on Iran-backed militias or directly on Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps forces in Yemen or Syria, a second official said. U.S. aides communicated a preference for a strategic but limited retaliation.
