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
Colby: Israel is fighting a different war in Iran
Top image credit: Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby speaks at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. (Screengrab via armed-services.senate.gov)

Colby: Israel is fighting a different war in Iran

QiOSK

The U.S. is pursuing “scoped and reasonable objectives” in its military campaign against Iran and is not seeking regime change through force, argued Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby in a Tuesday Senate hearing.

When pressed about why the campaign began with the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Colby declined to comment directly. “I’m talking about the goals of the American military campaign,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Those are Israeli operations.”

keep readingShow less
US missiles
Top photo credit: . DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Vince Parker, U.S. Air Force.

Trump: We have 'unlimited' weapons to fight 'forever' war

QiOSK

In a startling Truth Social post overnight on Monday, President Donald Trump defied reality and claimed that U.S. weapons were "unlimited" and the U.S. could fight "forever" with "these supplies."


keep readingShow less
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

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.