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
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less
SPD Germany Ukraine
Top Photo: Lars Klingbeil (l-r, SPD), Federal Minister of Finance, Vice-Chancellor and SPD Federal Chairman, and Bärbel Bas (SPD), Federal Minister of Labor and Social Affairs and SPD Party Chairwoman, bid farewell to the members of the previous Federal Cabinet Olaf Scholz (SPD), former Federal Chancellor, Nancy Faeser, Saskia Esken, SPD Federal Chairwoman, Karl Lauterbach, Svenja Schulze and Hubertus Heil at the SPD Federal Party Conference. At the party conference, the SPD intends to elect a new executive committee and initiate a program process. Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Does Germany’s ruling coalition have a peace problem?

Europe

Surfacing a long-dormant intra-party conflict, the Friedenskreise (peace circles) within the Social Democratic Party of Germany has published a “Manifesto on Securing Peace in Europe” in a stark challenge to the rearmament line taken by the SPD leaders governing in coalition with the conservative CDU-CSU under Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Although the Manifesto clearly does not have broad support in the SPD, the party’s leader, Deputy Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil, won only 64% support from the June 28-29 party conference for his performance so far, a much weaker endorsement than anticipated. The views of the party’s peace camp may be part of the explanation.

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.