Israel’s response
As Israel has insisted that it will respond to the Iranian assault, the big question now is how, said Dexter Filkins in The New Yorker. Ever since the creation of the Jewish state in 1948, a “cardinal rule” of its defence policy has been to respond to every attack on it, usually with even greater force. But such a reaction in this case would risk a full-scale war and “devastation across the Middle East”. The fact that the Iranian strikes did not cause mass casualties will have eased the pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu “to do something rash”, said Max Boot in The Washington Post. But he might nevertheless see this as a “perfect excuse to bomb Iran’s nuclear programme or other military installations”. Such a response would be justifiable, but it “wouldn’t be smart strategically”. With a population of 90 million to Israel’s 9.5 million, Iran has more than 500,000 active military personnel, “a sophisticated defence industry”, and a “vast network of powerful proxies across the region”. Israel could hurt Iran, but it couldn’t destroy its well-fortified nuclear programme, because it doesn’t have the heavy bombers or munitions that would require. And Biden has made it clear he doesn’t want the US to get “dragged into a war with the Islamic Republic”.
Even so, it could happen, said Trita Parsi in Foreign Policy. Netanyahu has an interest in prolonging the war with Hamas, since the moment it ends, his political career is likely to too – and he could then end up in jail if his corruption trial goes ahead. He also sees gains from enlarging that conflict, to deal with “what he perceives to be Israel’s biggest strategic threat”, which is the regime in Tehran that is funding and arming Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen. By contrast, a wider war would not further the US’s strategic goals, and it would harm Biden’s electoral prospects. For that reason, Biden has insisted that the US will not take part in any offensive action against Iran; but he has reiterated his pledge of “iron-clad” support for Israel’s defence. As Netanyahu, who has been seeking “to drag the US into war with Iran” for decades, knows, “the distinction between offensive or defensive support becomes meaningless the second a war breaks out”.
Still, Netanyahu also knows that such a war would be a vast and risky undertaking, said Jamie Dettmer on Politico. And as his former security adviser Yaakov Amidror points out, Iran’s attack has “gifted” him another good option – which is to agree not to strike back hard against Iran, in return for the US giving Israel all the help it needs to destroy Iran’s proxy in Gaza, “including in Rafah”. In short, the full brunt of Israel’s ire may be felt in Palestinian territories, and possibly in Lebanon too. Israel has less extreme options, said Anshel Pfeffer in The Times. It could seek vengeance via more familiar methods such as “clandestine sabotage” or assassinations; or it could use cyberattacks to hobble Iran’s infrastructure and economy. But would those satisfy the PM’s supporters and far-right coalition partners, who are calling for a devastating response? The truth is “there are no easy choices for Netanyahu or the country he leads”.