Follow us on social

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

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

Analysis | QiOSK
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

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.