In†icting retaliation without escalation: Netanyahu has a tough call to make on Iran
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving Prime Minister, built his political career promising security to his country. He claimed in the past that only he could stand up to the Iran threat. Yet, Hamas’s October 7 attack — the worst in Israel’s history, as well as a massive missile and drone strike by Iran breaching its borders, took place under his watch. After the Hamas attack, Mr. Netanyahu vowed to crush Hamas and went for an allout war on Gaza. Six months later, the war remains unnished. And after the April 14 attack by Iran, his government has promised a response, but the Prime Minister does not have any easy choices before him.
Until April 14, Israel was acting freely in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, targeting Iranian assets or its proxy networks. A shadow war between Israel and Iran has been raging in West Asia for years. Iran lost dozens of nuclear scientists and military ocers in this war and its response had largely been muted. This emboldened Israeli operations further in its immediate neighbourhood. Israel has reportedly carried out more than 400 air strikes against Iran-linked militias in the region. But the April 1 bombing of Iran’s embassy compound in Damascus, in which seven Revolutionary Guard ocers were killed, including Gen. Mohammed Reza Zahedi, seemed to have altered Iran’s strategic thinking.
New equilibrium
By launching a direct attack on Israel, Iran seeks to build a new strategic equilibrium. It wants to show that the Israeli attacks targeting Iranian interests would no longer be costfree. This is dangerous gambling as any direct Israeli retaliation would prompt Iran to launch another attack, triggering a cycle of violence or an allout war.
Israel says it managed to intercept “99%” of the Iranian projectiles. But there is a catch. Israel did not do it alone. The U.S., the U.K., France and Jordan all joined Israel in shooting down Iranian missiles and attack drones. And none of these partners want a regional war with Iran. Joe Biden told Mr. Netanyahu that the U.S. would not participate in any Israeli counter-attack on Iran, according to the White House.
This leaves Mr. Netanyahu in a dilemma. He always wanted to act tough on Iran, but without America’s support, it would be risky to go to war with Iran. Also, despite Israel’s multilayered defence system,
Iranian ballistic missiles managed to hit an Israeli base, and in the event of a full-scale war, both sides can wreak havoc on each other. Mr. Netanyahu also cannot back down. The Iranian attack breached Israel’s sovereignty, though the damage it caused was little. For a country with existential anxiety and whose strategic doctrine is rooted in deterrence and escalation dominance, not responding to a direct attack on its territory would be seen as weakness. Iran is also seeking to change the status quo. If Israel does not retaliate and looks weak, an emboldened Iran will pose more challenges to Israel’s future operations in Lebanon and Syria.
So the challenge before Mr. Netanyahu is to retaliate without escalating. Israeli media have reported that the War Cabinet has agreed to respond to Iran’s attack.
According to NBC, Biden administration ocials believe Mr. Netanyahu would not hit Iran directly. Instead, he would target Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria. But Israel is already attacking Iranian proxies and how would another round of strikes in Syria and Lebanon help Tel Aviv boost its deterrence against Iran?
The ball is in Mr. Netanyahu’s court. He has to make one of the several bad choices. He cannot afford to look weak; he cannot completely ignore his allies who are asking him to exercise restraint and he cannot ght a regional war without his allies.