For Israel, no easy path to muscular response to Iran

WHILE MANY ON THE RIGHT EXTREME IN ISRAEL WOULD WANT TO SEE A TOUGH RESPONSE TO IRAN, A GROWING VOICE WITHIN APPEARS TO SUPPORT THE NEED TO STEP BACK FROM THE CONFRONTATION.

letters@hindustantimes.com WASHINGTON: Iran’s weekend attack on Israel with more than 300 missiles and drones marks a perilous turn for a fragile region. It was an unprecedented action, the first strike on the Jewish state from Iranian soil. Iran declared it a massive success.

Yet with help from the US, UK and other allies, Israel stopped almost every one of the missiles and drones launched. No one was killed, and the damage minor. It too declared it an enormous success.

Both powers say their rivalry has shifted. Iran called it a “new equation” in which Israel had to know it could be attacked again; Israel said it will hit any nation that attacks it.

Iran’s allies, including the US, are eager for it to show restraint, and not raise the stakes further.

Many in Israel are open to that approach, partly because Iran’s attack was so unsuccessful, reducing the need for a quick show of force. It’s also because after weeks of scorn from Washington over the conduct of the war against Hamas in Gaza, Israelis felt a warm embrace once more. And that was comforting.

“Israel acted tonight for the first time as part of a coalition,” noted Tamir Heyman, a former chief of military intelligence. “That coalition is the answer to the day after the war in Gaza.”

But the forces keeping Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in office — those to his right — have a different idea. They say that if Israel doesn’t respond painfully and soon, Iran and its proxy militias across the region are likely to see weakness.

“Now we need a crushing attack,” said National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir.

Iran sent the missiles in retaliation for the April 1 killing of Iranian military officers in Damascus, widely attributed to, but not acknowledged by, Israel. Many saw Iran’s early and frequent publicizing of its attack as evidence that it wanted to make a point rather than start a war. Shortly after launching its attack, Iran’s mission to the United Nations said “the matter can be deemed concluded.”

Sima Shine, a former research director of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, said she believes Iran took into consideration Israel’s air defense system and wasn’t looking to inflict major casualties.

But Israeli military spokesmen said the arrival of more than 100 ballistic missiles toward the end of the attack was not an act of theatre; they could have caused enormous death and destruction if Israel didn’t have such an advanced air defense system and a strong set of alliances.

Part of any disagreement over how to proceed stems from the difference between how the Saturday night attack is seen, whether a retaliation for Damascus or part of Iran’s ongoing efforts to make life unbearable for Israel.

Amos Yadlin, a former director of Israeli military intelligence who advises opposition leader and war cabinet member Benny Gantz, sees it differently.

“Last night’s attack could lead to a strategic change in the war and even to its end,” he said. “Hamas has been beaten hard enough, Israel can now agree to a deal on the return of all its hostages in exchange for a permanent cease-fire and withdrawal from Gaza and win back its international legitimacy.”

The other dilemma for Israel is its northern border with Lebanon where it’s fighting Iranbacked Hezbollah.