Iran attack puts US back on Israel’s side – for now – Asia Times

Iran attack puts US back on Israel's side - for now - Asia Times

After surviving a massive air attack launched by Iran and its proxy on April 13, Israel’s battle government has been meeting to discuss its next move.

Benny Gantz stated after the government meeting on April 14 that no immediate action is being planned, but that Israel intends to form a local alliance and demand the price from Iran in the manner and timing that is appropriate for us. ”

The dynamics of the issue, both in the area and in Gaza, can be attained from Iran’s barrage of missiles and uavs directed at Israel, but the first thing that can be drawn is that it has altered the dynamics of the fight.

By the end of March, the US senator, Joe Biden, had become ever more forceful that Israel must greatly enhance the flow of support to the conflict-torn Arab area. He even wanted an end to the fighting.

Since Israel was attacked by Hamas past October 7, the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, had not been subject to this level of international force.

The Persian political mixture in Damascus was attacked by Israel on April 1. The attack killed 16 folks, including two senior Egyptian government. One of them was General Mohammad Zahedi, Tehran’s website man with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Israel has not taken role for the attack, but despite this Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, vowed to strike again in retribution. Biden, in move, vowed total support for Israel.

When Iran’s weapon and drone reaction came over the weekend, US forces contributed to Israel’s defense weapon. Israel’s conduct of the strategy in Gaza had already caused the US and numerous European governments to condemn it, making it a formidable allies that need solid support in just two weeks.

Regardless of the cause, the Damascus attack has had the opposite effects, focusing more on Gaza and strengthening Washington’s relationship. The fact that it occurred at a serendipitous moment for Netanyahu is truly important because the Gaza war has simply failed to go according to plan.

Losses in Gaza

The original goal was to thus severely harm Hamas that it ceased to pose a safety threat to the state of Israel following the terrible attacks on October 7. Hamas is also effective six weeks after this goal was not met. It is expanding its aid in the West Bank and has received a lot of support from the Middle East as well.

In the first few months of the war, the Israel Defense Forces ( IDF) started implementing the Dahiya doctrine with excessive force in an effort to undermine Hamas ‘ support for the organization by imposing a blanket ban on the entire population.

It is a tactic employed by the Army as far back as 1982’s siege of western Beirut, which was later refined during the pricey 2014 war against Hezbollah.

Thus far, more than 33,000 Palestinians have been killed and several thousand more are missing, most presumed buried under dust. There have been more than 75,000 maimed, and the majority of the victims were women and children.

Many of Gaza has been shattered. This includes institutions, universities, schools and institutions, as well as public functions such as water treatment plants.

Despite this and repeated Israeli says that northern and central Gaza have been spared of Hamas activities, the motion continues to spread throughout the entire country, and it is likely that the majority of the several hundred meters of underground caverns are still under Hamas ‘ control.

The current issue for Netanyahu and the Army is that it makes it much harder to put the Dahiya theory into practice if Biden is forced to give enough aid to the Palestinian population, particularly if it needs to accept a ceasefire for a while.

If the conflict always was winning, then it is not today. Netanyahu is but helped by the attention the US and the West have given Iran, but to maintain that target may not be simple.

Although it appears that the Persian drone and missile strike was large at first, there are signs that many of them were decoys, with the intention likely to be to test the effectiveness of Israel’s air defense system more than cause significant harm.

Regional assistance was involved in the attack, which involved local organizations that launched arms from Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.

The Iranian government has stated that they will not intervene farther unless Israel attacks again, but that their defense will be analyzing the results to determine how to proceed should they be deemed important.

Iran’s assault on Israel threatens to fire a wider geographical blaze. Image: Screengrab / X

What comes future?

Israelis have been injured, but there have n’t been any fatalities, and much will depend on Netanyahu’s actions going forward.

Although he is a remarkable political victim who is well aware that he will face severe pressure to restrain if the focus turns to the Gaza conflict.

Netanyahu remains unpopular in Israel, but there is solid support for the war and that remains, beyond the immediate conflict in Gaza, the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme.

There was a concern that negotiations surrounding this system were going to collapse just over a year ago. In the event, a break was avoided.

Finally, in May of last year, Iran reported the opening of a large new vault close to Natanz in the Zagros Mountains, which was buried so strong that it was beyond the reach of even the American GBU-57 earth-penetrating bomb, which is hole 60 meters under before exploding.

Given that Israel currently has a stock of partly enriched uranium, reportedly enough to create three crude bombs, there is already a public discussion about the potential for Iran to launch a rocket defense against a limited nuclear arsenal.

A prolonged investigation into Iran’s nuclear program would be politically advantageous, according to Netanyahu, but any significant military action would run the risk of an unintended escalation. For any other president, that might be sufficient to guarantee caution, but perhaps not Benjamin Netanyahu.

Paul Rogers is Professor of Peace Studies, University of Bradford

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.