Follow us on social

google cta
Iran launches risky attack on Israel

Iran launches risky attack on Israel

Biden could have thwarted it, but chose to put Netanyahu before US, which is now at risk of getting dragged into war

Analysis | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

UPDATE 4/14: Iran launched some 300 missiles and drones at Israel overnight. Israel reports that "99 percent" were intercepted, with U.S. help, and only "minor damage" to an Israeli air base had been sustained. Reports today indicate that the Biden administration on Saturday night had urged the government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to refrain from retaliatory strikes so not to risk escalation of war between the two counties. For its part, Iran said its own retaliation for the killing of seven Iranian officials, including an IRGC commander, in the April 1 consulate strike in Syria was "concluded" but would hit back harder Israel decided to launch further attacks.



The full scope and impact of Iran's retaliation for Israel's bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus will not be fully known until later this evening.

As of now, the Iranian response, telegraphed for weeks, appears choreographed to demonstrate resolve and restore a sense of deterrence, but without escalating matters further.

Whether it will achieve this objective depends to a large extent on the damage Iran inflicts on Israel. If Israel, the U.S., and the UK manage to intercept the overwhelming majority of the Iranian drones and missiles, Iran may end up embarrassing itself and lose further deterrence, even though it crossed the red line of attacking Israel directly from Iranian territory.

If the damage it inflicts is significant, it may not only elicit further Israeli escalation but also greater American involvement in the war.

As such, Iran's retaliation is immensely risky, particularly since it clearly seeks to avoid a larger war while the Netanyahu government in Israel does see benefit from such an escalation.

It should be noted that Israel attacked the Iranian consulate without giving the U.S. a warning, even though it likely would end the U.S.-Iran truce and restart militia attacks against American troops.

Despite endangering the U.S., President Biden has once again decided to show ironclad support for the Netanyahu government, despite how its actions risk bringing the US into war.

What is fundamentally problematic about Biden's approach, is that all of the pressure is on Iran not to respond, combined with zero pressure on Israel, not to provoke this escalation in the first place.

Many of us had warned from the outset of the Gaza war that Biden needed to press for a ceasefire in order to avoid a regional escalation that could draw the US into the war. Instead, Biden vetoed three UNSC resolutions demanding a ceasefire and undermined a fourth that he allowed to pass by erroneously claiming that it was non-binding.

Biden's primary responsibility is to keep America secure and out of unnecessary wars. Had he pressed for a ceasefire from the outset, America would not be on the cusp of yet another senseless war in the Middle East right now.


An anti-missile system operates after Iran launched drones and missiles towards Israel, as seen from Ashkelon, Israel April 14, 2024. REUTERS/Amir Cohen TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: An Iranian cleric and a young girl stand next to scale models of Iran-made ballistic missiles and centrifuges after participating in an anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli rally marking the anniversary of the U.S. embassy occupation in downtown Tehran, Iran, on November 4, 2025.(Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via REUTERS CONNECT)

Want Iran to get the bomb? Try regime change

Middle East

Washington is once again flirting with a familiar temptation: the belief that enough pressure, and if necessary, military force, can bend Iran to its will. The Trump administration appears ready to move beyond containment toward forcing collapse. Before treating Iran as the next candidate for forced transformation, policymakers should ask a question they have consistently failed to answer in the Middle East: “what follows regime change?”

The record is sobering. In the past two decades, regime change in the region has yielded state fragmentation, authoritarian restoration, or prolonged conflict. Iraq remains fractured despite two decades of U.S. investment. Egypt’s democratic opening collapsed within a year. Libya, Syria, and Yemen spiraled into civil wars whose spillover persists. In each case, removing a regime proved far easier than constructing a viable successor. Iran would not be the exception. It would be the rule — at a scale that dwarfs anything the region has experienced.

keep readingShow less
Much ado about a Chinese 'mega-embassy' in London
Top image credit: London, UK - 3rd May 2025: Protestors gather outside the Royal Mint to demonstrate against plans to relocate China's embassy to the site. (Monkey Butler Images/Shutterstock)

Much ado about a Chinese 'mega-embassy' in London

Europe

A group of Russian nuns were recently sighted selling holy trinkets in Swedish churches. Soon, Swedish newspapers were awash with headlines about pro-Putin spies engaged in “funding the Putin war machine.” Russian Orthodox priests had also allegedly infiltrated Swedish churches located suspiciously close to military bases and airports.

Michael Ojermo, the rector of Täby, a suburb of Stockholm, tried to quell the alarm. There is no evidence of ecclesiastical espionage, he said, and “a few trinkets cannot fund a war.”

keep readingShow less
world powers
Top photo credit: (Ben_Je/Shutterstock)

US-China symposium: Spheres of influence for me, not for thee?

Asia-Pacific

In the new National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy, the Trump team charges that the Monroe Doctrine has been "ignored" by previous administrations and that the primary goal now is to reassert control over its economic and security interests in the Western Hemisphere.

"We will guarantee U.S. military and commercial access to key terrain, especially the Panama Canal, Gulf of America, and Greenland," states the NDS. The U.S. will work with neighbors to protect "our shared interests," but "where they do not, we will stand ready to take focused, decisive action that concretely advances U.S. interests."

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.