Israeli Air Force fighter jets prepare to head out for strikes in Iran, early October 26, 2024. (Israel Defense Forces)
Michael Oren: Game-ender or game-changer?
Thanks to Clarity with Michael Oren
Israel’s retaliation against Iran leaves open the question of whether the mission secured its fundamental objective of deterring the Islamic Republic
In strictly military terms, Israel’s retaliation against Iran on Saturday morning was a prodigious success. It once again demonstrated the unparalleled prowess and regional reach of the Israeli Air Force, and its ability to operate in Iranian skies with total impunity. The strike again showcased the success of Israeli intelligence in penetrating the highest echelons of Iran’s military and civilian leadership and in pinpointing diverse and remote targets. Israel’s Defense Forces, though deeply engaged in both Gaza and Lebanon, proved its ability – and its willingness – to operate on yet another major front. At the same time, the limited dimensions of the attack minimized civilian casualties and possibly relieved Iran of an overriding need to escalate. The regime, already grappling with severe domestic opposition, had been weakened and humiliated.
Though certainly impressive, the mission’s military feats were at least equaled, and perhaps surpassed, by its political, diplomatic, and strategic achievements.
The raid followed weeks of intense pressure on Israel from the Biden Administration, which adamantly opposed an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear and oil facilities. The president, publicly and injudiciously, called on Israel not to bomb these sites and later claimed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had agreed. The White House sent a procession of high-level US officials to Israel – the hibuk, in Hebrew, the bearhug – to help stay its hand. Finally, supremely sensitive American intelligence documents detailing Israel’s preparations for the raid were leaked to a pro-Iranian social media platform. The disclosure, the Israeli press reported, forced the IDF to delay the retaliation’s timing and revise its initial plan.
Throughout, the administration daily broadcast its fear of being drawn into a wider regional conflagration triggered by a large-scale Israeli reprisal. It feared the impact of the raid on America’s diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire and hostage release deal in Gaza and to implement UN Resolution 1071, mandating Hezbollah’s withdrawal miles from Israel’s northern border, in Lebanon. Mostly it dreaded a spike in oil prices and the appearance of US powerlessness on the eve of the 2024 elections.
Yet, despite its heavy and often ham-handed approach, the White House got its way. Accordingly, it praised the operation, deeming it a legitimate act of self-defense, and urged Iran to refrain from further escalation. The elections, at least at this writing, appear to be unaffected. Following many months of acute strain, the US-Israel alliance has undoubtedly been strengthened along with America’s status in the Middle East. Washington, this morning, has every reason to feel heartened and relieved.
In addition to pleasing Washington, and despite their pro forma condemnations, the raid was no doubt received favorably by Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Jordan, and Egypt. All wanted Iran to be punished but not at the price of an all-out Middle East war. By contrast, Iran’s Russian ally suffered a major setback as its most sophisticated anti-aircraft systems were shown to be powerless to stop the Israelis.
So, with all its outstanding results, the question remains whether the mission secured its fundamental objective of deterring Iran. Will it dampen in any way Iranian support for its terrorist proxies or, by contrast, lead it to back diplomatic solutions? Did the limited operation reduce or enhance the danger of an Iranian decision to break out and create a nuclear weapon?
The answers will soon become clear. Just hours after the strike, Hezbollah rockets continued to rain on Northern Israel and Iran pledged to react proportionally to Israel. Rather than crediting its restraint, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal both faulted Israel for expanding the Middle East war. And though grateful now, it’s yet to be seen whether the White House will respond as it did in 2012 when Netanyahu, after refraining from attacking Iran weeks before the presidential elections, was described by a senior source as “chickenshit.”
Though no polls have yet been conducted, many Israelis will likely feel that a unique opportunity has been missed. The Iranian nuclear threat still looms existentially over our heads and the Ayatollahs continue to vow daily to annihilate us. For Israel, the hope is that the overnight operation will send them an unequivocal message: ‘If we can do this now, just imagine what else we can do in the future.’ If that message is received, the operation may prove to be, if not a game-ender, a game-changer.
This article originally appeared in the Times of Israel
