Israel Should Take The W
Israel was attacked by Iran on Saturday -- and the best response would be to do nothing.
I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality. If you were sent this email or are a free subscriber and would like to become a paid subscriber, you can sign up here.
If money is tight or you’re already up to eyeballs in subscriptions, here’s another idea — share this article. Email it to a friend (or even an enemy). Post it on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn. Text or email it to your wife, husband, mother, father, brother, sister, or even your creepy second cousin who lives in Sedona. Word of mouth is often the best way to build support for a creative endeavor, so if everyone here sends it to just one person … it would be much appreciated!
A Nothingburger?
Over the weekend, Iran launched a military strike against Israel — the first time in history that the Islamic Republic attacked Israel from Iranian soil. As Zack Beauchamp notes, the “attack” was a curious one.
Tehran had been telegraphing a response targeting Israeli territory for weeks, giving Israel and its allies plenty of time to prepare. The drones it chose to launch were slow-moving, taking hours to reach Israeli airspace and passing over neighboring countries (notably Jordan) that shot them down. Fears that Iran would overwhelm Israel’s air defenses with fast-moving missiles proved largely unfounded.
Perhaps not surprisingly, 99 percent of the drones and missiles were shot down, not just by Israel but also by the United States and several of its Arab neighbors. Those that did make it through Israel’s air defenses caused minor damage.
The Iranian strikes were a direct response to Israel’s assassination, two weeks ago, of several top Iranian security officials at the country’s embassy in Damascus, Syria. But the feebleness of the Iranian strike suggests that Teheran was seeking to wage a symbolic attack against Israel rather than a substantive one that would risk a significant military response.
This interpretation is consistent with previous Iranian behavior. After the US assassinated Qassem Soleimani, the leader of the country’s Revolutionary Guards, Iran responded by firing missiles at a US airbase in Iraq, which, while it caused some damage, seemed calibrated not to provoke a major US retaliation. The jury is still out as to whether Israel will retaliate, but it would be wise to leave well enough alone — because the Iran strike is, ironically, a major strategic victory for Israel.
First, it’s taken attention away — at least temporarily — from the situation in Gaza. Second, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, along with the United States, assisted in Israel’s defense, which not only speaks to Iran’s isolation in the region but provides an enormous public relations boon for Israel. Even in the face of the bloodletting in Gaza, Arab states are still willing to put skin in the game to protect Israel from Iran. For Israel, a country obsessed with normalization and ending its isolation in the Middle East, this is a genuinely historic moment. Third, the support of Arab states for Israel demonstrates how little these countries are willing to sacrifice on behalf of the Palestinians. In the past, an attack on Israel by Iran, with the war in Gaza going on, would have likely led to public applause from the Arab world. Indeed, one suspects that Hamas believed October 7 would lead other Muslim states to join in and attack Israel. Instead, the Arab World is doing the exact opposite, which only further highlights the isolation of Hamas and Arab indifference to the Palestinian cause in general. As has been clear for some time, the Arab World is far more concerned about Iran than they are about the plight of the Palestinians.
Finally, the Iran drone and missile attack was met with near-universal condemnation from US elected officials — and GOP members of Congress said they are now looking to move forward with legislation providing Israel with military assistance.
In short, this is a huge win for Israel, and it will likely unravel if Israel launches a major military response.
To be clear, Israel would be on reasonably solid ground in launching a retaliatory strike. Iran’s Saturday attack was qualitatively different than Israel’s Syrian strike. Iran appears to have targeted civilians with their drone attack — and a Bedoiun child was seriously hurt by one of the missiles that made it through Israel’s air defenses. Considering this is the first-ever direct attack against Israel by Iran, it should necessitate a military response, if only to restore Israel’s deterrence posture. Israel has long made clear that it will respond to any direct attack with overwhelming force. Doing nothing would seemingly encourage others to try and replicate Iran’s actions.
But I’m not so sure that this notion of deterrence still holds up. Enemies no longer surround Israel, as was the case 3 or 4 decades ago. Israel’s neighbors are now helping protect it! Also, one might think that Israel’s military response to October 7 provides reasonably strong evidence to Israel’s enemies that a major terrorist attack on Israeli soil will lead to an even more significant response.
There is a precedent for Israel to cool its jets. In 1991, during the Gulf War, when Iraq launched SCUD missiles against Israel, the country’s leaders — at the urging of the United States — did not respond out of fear that doing so would unravel the international coalition established to push Iraq out of Kuwait.
Moreover, if Israel responds, it would do so on its own, as the US has apparently made clear to Israeli leaders that they will not participate in any retaliatory military action.
Based on current reporting, it looks increasingly unlikely that Israel will do what it did in 1991.
If this reporting is correct, it would be a huge mistake. Attacking Iran would undercut all the goodwill Israel has accumulated over the past several days, inflame its Arab allies, and anger the Biden Administration.
If Israel responds, the best one can hope for is a symbolic attack on par with what Iran did—perhaps even a cyber attack that doesn’t get much attention. But if Israel responds, then it risks another Iranian response … and so on and so on. However, calibrating these attacks so as not to engender a significant retaliation could offer a path to de-escalation—in other words, a series of pin-prick operations that eventually peter out.
The cynic would argue that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants an escalating conflict because it would take attention away from his mistakes in the Gaza war and rally Israeli public opinion behind him. However, it’s rather interesting that according to reporting by the Times of Israel, ministers Benny Gantz and Gadi Eizenkot — both former IDF chiefs of staff — pushed for a quick retaliatory strike, and it was Netanyahu who shot them down.
Perhaps Bibi has come to his senses or fears the uncertainty of a larger war. Or perhaps he sees the benefits of a muted response. Whatever the case, let’s hope this holds—not just for Israel’s sake but for the region as a whole. Sometimes, the best military response is no response at all.
What’s Going On
Donald Trump's New York City trial started today … and apparently, he fell asleep in court, which, truth be told, might be the most relatable thing he’s ever done.
Trump’s GOP supporters are unanimous in their view that backing a convicted felon for president is completely fine.
Against the wishes of US officials, Ukraine keeps attacking Russia’s oil refineries.
As a huge Old 97s fan, I really enjoyed this article in which lead singer Rhett Miller ranks all of the group’s albums (I would have had “Too Far To Care” at number one!)
Musical Interlude