Attack and Risk: Israel’s Dilemma

Can Israel respond forcefully to Iran’s attack and not lose the support of its allies?

By Anil Madan

Iran’s second direct attack on Israel unleashed about 180 ballistic missiles. Most missed. Or were intercepted. An Israeli air base was damaged and in tragic irony, the lone person Iran killed was a Palestinian.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard justified the attack not only as retaliation of the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran last July, but curiously also as a response to the killing of Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah, not on Iranian soil, but in Beirut last week. Major General Patrick Ryder, speaking for the Pentagon said that the US had assisted Israel in knocking out missiles fired into Israel, and that the number of ballistic missiles fired by Iran was twice that of Iran’s April attack.

Some 100 homes in city of Hod Hasharon, northern Israel, damaged by Iranian missile attack

The U.S. Response and President Biden’s Dilemma

President Biden is caught between recognizing Israel’s right to respond and trying to avoid an all-out regional war. He has consulted with G7 member countries in an apparent effort to impose additional sanctions on Iran. He said: “We’ll be discussing with the Israelis what they’re going to do, but all seven of us (G7 countries) agree that they have a right to respond but they should respond proportionally.”

It is not clear what Biden, his administration, or the G7 countries consider an acceptable “proportional” response under the circumstances. Israel has long threatened to strike Iran’s nuclear sites. But when asked if he would back such a strike now, Biden said emphatically: “The answer is no.” However, he did promise that more sanctions would be imposed on Iran. Adding that he would speak soon with Netanyahu, Biden said: “Obviously, Iran is way off course.”

Press reports abound that the US has cautioned Israel against targeting Tehran’s nuclear facilities, warning that such actions could escalate regional instability. Secretary of State Blinken has expressed concern about the potential for further escalation in the Middle East with his European counterparts. Naftali Bennett, a former Israeli Prime Minister, called for a decisive strike on Iran’s nuclear sites to “fatally cripple this terrorist regime.” Matthew Miller, a State Department spokesman said: “Israel has a right to respond… but we don’t want to see any action that would lead to a full-blown regional war.”

It is not clear why the US fears a regional war. Iran and its two major proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah are already at war with Israel, and a somewhat marginal proxy, the Houthis are also involved. Iran has no other allies in the Middle East that it can entice into a war with Israel. Of course, there are lingering concerns about what Russia and China might do in supporting Iran.

The US has sent mixed messages in this regard. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan promised “severe consequences” for Iran and stated in a briefing that the US would “work with Israel to make that the case.” However, Sullivan did not specify what those consequences might be, and he did not urge Israel to exercise restraint as President Biden did after Iran’s drone and missile attack last April.

While members of the Israeli government and its spokespersons have promised that retaliation is in the offing, Prime Minister Netanyahu approach included both a promise of severe consequences, and a striking appeal to the Iranian people.

Netanyahu promised that Iran would pay for its missile attack against Israel. He said: “Iran made a big mistake tonight – and it will pay for it,” and he warned: “Whoever attacks us, we attack them.” Israeli Defense Minister Gallant echoed his Prime Minister’s promise: “Iran has not learned a simple lesson – those who attack the state of Israel, pay a heavy price.” Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, added: “We will act. Iran will soon feel the consequences of their actions. The response will be painful.”

Netanyahu’s Message to Iran

Netanyahu also took the unusual step of recording a video message to the Iranian people. It was a speech that a politician running for office might make. Of course, we cannot know how many Iranians will have access to Netanyahu’s speech. Or indeed, whether it is likely to resonate with the disaffected average Iranian.

Netanyahu’s message was that the oppressive theocratic regime is plunging the Middle East deeper into darkness and deeper into war, bringing the “noble Persian people” closer to the abyss. He accused the regime of wasting billions of dollars on futile wars across the Middle East instead of improving their lives. He castigated the regime for wasting vast sums of money on nuclear weapons and foreign wars instead of having invested it in education, improving your health care, building Iran’s infrastructure, water, and sewage facilities.

“When Iran is finally free — and that moment will come a lot sooner than people think – everything will be different,” Netanyahu promised, thus hinting that Israel might bring about regime change. Offering a vision of hope, he said: “Our two ancient peoples, the Jewish people and the Persian people, will finally be at peace. Our two countries, Israel and Iran, will be at peace. When that day comes, the terror network that the regime built in five continents will be bankrupt, dismantled. Iran will thrive as never before. Global investment. Massive tourism. Brilliant technological innovation based on the tremendous talents that exists inside Iran. Doesn’t that sound better than endless poverty, repression and war?”

As if rallying the Iranian people to rise, Netanyahu exhorted them: “Don’t let a small group of fanatic theocrats crush your hopes and your dreams. You deserve better. Your children deserve better. The entire world deserves better. I know you don’t support the rapists and murderers of Hamas and Hezbollah, but your leaders do. You deserve more. The people of Iran should know – Israel stands with you. May we together know a future of prosperity and peace.”

Israel’s Strategic Options and Risks

Given this background, what options does Israel have? Obviously, striking Iran’s nuclear installations seems like a dream scenario. The frequent threats made by the Iranian regime to destroy Israel must be taken more seriously than ever now that Iran has twice attempted direct missile and drone strikes. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said the attack was “in accordance with the United Nations Charter,” after what it described as “a period of restraint” following an “attack on the sovereignty” of Iran – referring to the killing of Haniyeh on Iranian soil. Any claim that Iran was entitled to retaliate for the killing of Nasrallah is spurious.

One of the risks of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is that it would spur the regime to hasten the development of nuclear weapons. Last April, this is exactly what the head of the IRGC Nuclear Command, Brigadier General Haghtalab, promised would happen if Israel attacked.

One of the risks of not attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities is that Israel probably cannot count on restraint by the Ayatollah’s and thus the existential threat to Israel’s existence is stark.

Iran’s nuclear installations

In the past, the US has not shown any willingness to participate with Israel in any attack on Iran, let alone on its nuclear installations. Biden’s dismissal of support for an attack by Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities as a response to the latest missile attack is clearly not seen as proportional by Biden and obviously, if Israel is going to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, it will be on its own.

Critical parts of Iran’s nuclear installations are said to be deep underground, and at depths that even the bunker busting bombs that Israel used in Gaza would be ineffective. And there are layers of defense that would need to be penetrated for a strike on nuclear installations to be successful and effective.

It is highly unlikely that Israel could fly bombers to Iran, have them deposit bombs and return to home base without a refueling stop. Is inflight refueling a possibility? Yes, but most likely Israel would have to acquire that capacity from the US. Would the US loan or lease long-range bombers to Israel? Not for attacks on nuclear installations, if President Biden’s emphatic “no” stands. Any Israeli attack then would most likely have to be with missiles. Israel does have intermediate range ballistic missiles, but certainly not anything capable of destroying the deep underground structures that Iran has built.

Nor would Israeli air strikes destroy the knowledge and knowhow that the Iranian regime has built over the years that its nuclear program has been in effect. And certainly, Israel would not destroy the objective of the Ayatollahs to end the very existence of the Jewish state.

Perhaps it is in recognition of these realities that Netanyahu invoked the prospect of regime change with his words: “When Iran is finally free — and that moment will come a lot sooner than people think – everything will be different.”

Israel has shown that its intelligence capabilities are formidable and that its ability to penetrate defenses and take out people is to be feared. Indeed, the Iranians must know this because it was reported that the Supreme Leader was moved to a secure location in the immediate aftermath of the Nasrallah assassination.

Clearly, Israel will retaliate. A strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities has too many risks, the major ones being ineffectiveness and the prospect of spurring on even more intense efforts to develop and stockpile nuclear warheads by the Ayatollahs, and the loss of support among Israel’s allies. As might be expected, Iran has threatened Israel with even more devastation if it responds and promised the same for any countries helping Israel.

It does not seem too much of a stretch, therefore, to believe that Israel’s allies, all seven of the G7 members would be happier without Iran’s theocrats running that nation.

Who knows what Israel’s immediate response is going to be? Surely regime change must be in the mix.

Cheerz…
Bwana

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 4 October 2024