Israel continued this Monday to consider its response options to the historic direct attack by Iran, which in turn warned of a broader retaliation if that occurs.
Two Israeli war cabinet meetings in 24 hours failed to produce a resolution, which entails complicated political calculations. At the table of five people – although only Prime Minister Beniamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and the former opposition Benny Gantz have decision-making power – differences persisted about where and when to hit Tehran and on what scale.
According to Channel 12 of Israeli television, the Cabinet (which meets again this Tuesday) discussed several options to apply a “painful” retaliation to Iran, without provoking a regional war. The election must also convince the United States, which has urged Israel to take as a victory the almost zero impact of the more than 300 drones and missiles launched by Tehran in response to the bombing of its consular building in Damascus.
The one who stepped on the brakes when it came to taking action was Netanyahu, according to CNN, in response to the desire for immediate revenge that Gantz would have requested. In that heated internal debate, the objective would be to attack an Iranian facility to send a message, but without causing casualties, Persian style.
What is not in dispute is that the Hebrew Government lets this first Iranian assault on its territory pass. And that this response cannot be delayed either so as not to lose momentum after the “successful defense” that its allies have given it, which has allowed it to recruit Arab nations like Jordan and also recover its impunity in Gaza.
Precisely, the Israeli retaliation aims to maintain and expand that fragile strategic partnership that emerged in the early hours of Sunday against Iran, while a broader regional conflict poses a risk when Israeli forces accumulate six months of a horrific invasion with no clear end in the Palestinian strip and exchanges of fire with Hizbullah in Lebanon.
Hence voices like Amos Yadlin, former head of Israeli military intelligence, insist on acting with “a broad perspective.” “Produce close coordination with Washington; do not rush to respond; urgently stabilize the situation in the West Bank; and, finally and perhaps most importantly, initiate a movement to change the strategic direction that rescues Israel from the strip, through a hostage release agreement and a tightening of the regional alliance towards normalization,” Yedlin wrote in the social network
Despite Israel's apparent determination, the US would still seek to deter its wayward ally. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken stated that Washington is “coordinating a diplomatic response to prevent an escalation.”
Israel's European partners mobilized against Iran choose this path, sending similar messages this Monday. French President Emmanuel Macron defended an approach aimed at “isolating Iran, convincing other countries in the region that it is a danger, increasing sanctions, reinforcing pressure on its nuclear activities.” The British Foreign Secretary, David Cameron, considered that “the smartest thing” would be to “recognize that Iran's attack was a failure” and avoid retaliation; while his German counterpart, Annalena Baerbock, urged securing Israel's “defensive victory” with diplomatic means.
Faced with the wave of condemnations from the West – which did not condemn Israel's initial bombing – the spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Naser Kanani, replied that “they should appreciate Iran's moderation in recent months” regarding the Jewish actions. And the head of that portfolio, Hosein Amir Abdolahian, reiterated that Tehran will respond “immediately and with more force” to any counterattack.
With no signs of taking steps back, both Israel and Iran seem willing to propose a new scenario in their historically indirect dispute. “The danger is that now that the war has come out of the shadows, it may be difficult to put it back there,” Javed Ali, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan, tells The Conversation. And so “the situation could get out of control,” fears Ali Vaez, director of the Iran project at the International Crisis Group, who notes that “the two states could find themselves in direct and sustained hostilities that result in large numbers of victims and destabilize even more so a region that is already dangerous. "Such a conflict could spread quickly."
