Pick Your Poison: An Analysis of the Israeli and American Position in the Wake of Iran’s Missile Attacks
On Saturday night, my phone began to buzz. My Jewish friends from around the world, almost all of whom have family and friends in Israel, were reacting to the news that Iran had just launched its first-ever direct attack on Israel. Coming in the form of hundreds of drones and rockets launched directly from Iran at targets across Israel, the barrage was a response to the killing of a high-level Iranian commander in a building adjacent to the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria by Israeli forces. Israel and its allies succeeded in shooting down close to 100% of the Iranian missiles, leading to minimal damage in the country. The success of the defense operation, in conjunction with Iran’s unprecedented attack, has created a significant foreign policy dilemma for both Israel and the United States.
For years, Israel has been battling Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, as well as turning back proxy strikes from Yemen and Iraq. Both countries have also long carried out shadow military operations against one another, with both countries accusing the other of attacks over the past decades. The United States, as Israel’s most trusted ally, was thus able to aid Israel in its defense without directly countering the Iranian regime. Now, that facade no longer holds. By directly attacking Israel, Iran has brought the United States to the precipice of direct conflict, leaving President Biden to make crucial decisions about the future of the partnership between the two countries.
A first option, though one that President Biden appears to have taken off the table in a recent call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is for the United States to respond with force to the attack by Iran on one of its allies. US Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), said on social media that “We must move quickly and launch aggressive retaliatory strikes on Iran.” While taking such an action would no doubt be a massive show of force for the United States in the Middle East, it would also be a mistake. By responding to Iran, The United States would drastically widen the scope of the conflict and likely draw wide condemnation from Arab nations. Given the demonstrated inability of Iran to strike Israel in any meaningful way, such a step would serve no concrete purpose, and would raise the stakes of the conflict to potentially catastrophic levels solely to make an example out of Iran.
Israel is faced with a far more complex and immediate problem. Iran has made it clear that any further response from Israel would be met with corresponding firepower, showcasing the danger of a cycle of retaliation between the countries. Historically, however, Israel has not been known to stand down. The current war in Gaza is defined by Israel’s desire to achieve total victory over their enemy, and strikes from Gaza and Lebanon have always been answered with force, at the very least of equal proportion. Thus, there is a serious appetite among Israelis to respond to Iran’s barrage with one of their own. Since October 7th, Israelis are no longer content with only playing defense, waiting for the inevitable strike. Thus, whether or not regular Israeli citizens view Tehran as an imminent threat will likely be the deciding factor as the Israeli war cabinet deliberates on its next move. Prime Minister Netanyahu leads a fragile right-wing coalition, and that coalition has voiced its desire for strong, decisive action. However, this act would not come without significant cost.
The United States supplies Israel with massive amounts of aid and weapons (over $300 billion since 1948), and that aid has always been closely intertwined with Israel’s advancement of American foreign policy objectives in the region. Should those weapons be used, whether defensively or offensively, in a war that the United States viewed as avoidable, politicians already teetering on further foreign aid would push to withhold or limit aid to Israel. The United States Congress has already faced immense challenges in passing aid packages for Israel, Gaza, and Ukraine, and there is likely little to no appetite for the financing of yet another conflict far away from home, particularly one that is far more offensive than the other two conflicts.
While the domestic urge for Israel to show strength in a moment of crisis is clear, firing on Tehran is the most dangerous option. Rather, Israel must show strength through defense–strength they have already shown. By shooting down 99% of Iranian rockets and sustaining just one casualty, Israel has unequivocally demonstrated its military prowess. Another important detail with regards to the Iranian barrage is the assistance Israel received from other nations–particularly Arab ones. Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as well as the United States and France, assisted Israel in shooting down the Iranian missiles. This act showed Iran that their allies in a potential war against Israel would be few and far between, and their foe formidable. This must be enough for Israel. Whether it will be enough for the citizens of Israel, however, is an entirely different question altogether.
