WASHINGTON — The last time President Joe Biden helped Israel repel an Iranian missile onslaught, he advised Benjamin Netanyahu against retaliation, telling the prime minister to “take the win.”
Now, after another barrage of missiles from Iran, things have changed: He’s giving Israel a green light — albeit with qualifications — to strike back.
Last week, the United States assisted Israel in repelling nearly 200 ballistic missiles Iran launched at the country, similar to what had occurred in April. The attack came after Israel killed the longtime leader of Hezbollah, the Lebanese terror group and chief Iranian proxy.
But whereas Biden in April cautioned Israel against hitting back hard and reportedly was infuriated when Netanyahu ordered a retaliatory strike on Iran, this time top Biden officials are saying the story isn’t over — nor do they want it to be — though they also want to avoid a major regional conflagration. And Israelis sound happy to hear that message.
Brett McGurk, the top Middle East official on the National Security Council, said Wednesday in a High Holidays call with Jewish faith leaders that the Biden administration was “committed to holding Iran fully accountable for that attack,” and he suggested there would be more to come.
“This has our full complete attention, we will not waver in our commitment to the defense of Israel,” he said. “I think you’ll actually see that play out here over the coming weeks.”
Israel is also blaring its own signals that it will strike back in a big way: “As we have shown until now in this war and in all arenas — whoever attacks Israel will pay a price. Our strike will be powerful, precise, and above all — surprising. They will not understand what happened and how it happened,” Defense Minister Yoav Gallant told troops this week.
Middle East watchers said the change is due to the unprecedented breadth and potency of Iran’s attack, and the greater dangers it posed.
The attack in April was a mix of low- and high-impact airborne devices, with drones leaving Iranian airspace hours before they would arrive — giving Israel, the United States and other allies a long heads-up to prepare. Last week’s attack, by contrast, was entirely ballistic missiles, giving Israel and the United States only about 15 minutes of advance warning.
“I believe that what the president has said is that it should be proportionate,” said Richard Fontaine, the CEO of the Center for a New American Security, a think tank founded by former national security officials who served in Democratic administrations. Biden is saying, Fontaine said, that “in the face of 200 ballistic missiles headed toward Israeli cities, that Israel is fully within its rights and would be prudent to try to reestablish a degree of deterrence by demonstrating that those kinds of attacks impose costs on the attacker.”
The attack in April was also smaller and more focused, said Fontaine on Thursday during a webinar.
“This time feels quite different given the scale of the attack,” he said. “I think it’s a matter of what the retaliation strike looks like rather than whether there will be one at all.”
David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, also said the breadth of the Iranian attack last week led the Biden administration to conclude that retaliation was necessary.
“The U.S. understands that Israel is going to hit back,” said Makovsky, whose think tank engages with high-level government officials in both countries.
Nonetheless, he said, Biden was warning Israel not to target installations that could escalate into all-out war, including Iran’s oil fields, its nuclear reactors and targets that could result in mass civilian deaths.
“The key is, is there a way Israel can make a point about deterrence that does not lead into a widening war,” Makovsky said. Hitting strictly military targets would have the added bonus of harming Iranian facilities that are manufacturing weapons Russia is using against Ukraine, he said.
“Do they try to hit Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps buildings, do they try to hit drone manufacturers and ballistic missiles?” he said. “Those targets would have the benefit of being used against Ukraine.”
Michael Koplow, the chief policy director for the Israel Policy Forum, a group that advocates for the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, said he isn’t surprised that the Biden administration is qualifying its support for a retaliation. U.S. reluctance to fully back Israel is nothing new, he said, noting that President George W. Bush, seen historically as one of the most pro-Israel presidents, declined for a period to provide Israel with the “bunker busters” that could reach Iranian facilities.
“Right now, obviously it’s an even more tense point, given the need for Israel to respond to a direct ballistic missile attack,” he said in a webinar. “And it’s happening in the context of the U.S. wanting to avert a wider regional war, which is always the U.S. concern with regard to Iran and Israel, but all the more so when Israel is fighting in Gaza and is fighting in Lebanon.”
Biden initially fully backed Israel’s retaliations against Hamas for launching the war with its large-scale invasion on Oct. 7, 2023, and against Hezbollah for joining the war the next day. But he has in recent months differed with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Israel’s conduct of the war, particularly regarding mitigating civilian casualties.
President Joe Biden on the phone wwith President Isaac Herzog of Israel in the Oval Office, Oct. 7, 2024.
The recent escalation of violence between Israel and Iran-backed groups in Gaza and Lebanon has raised concerns about the potential for further conflict. The attacks, which resulted in the decapitation of key leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah, have prompted Iran to become more involved in the conflict.
One significant factor contributing to the tension is the upcoming presidential election, which is less than four weeks away. The response to the attacks could have implications for the election, global energy prices, and other aspects of the conflict. Israel is likely to seek a strong response, while the U.S. may urge restraint to avoid escalating the situation.
There is a difference in the risk tolerance between Israel and the United States at this time. Israel is more willing to take risks due to recent successes in targeting Hezbollah, while the U.S. is more risk-averse leading up to the election. Israel may want to target critical Iranian sites, such as nuclear facilities, but would likely require U.S. assistance in the form of munitions.
Prime Minister Netanyahu is seizing an opportunity before the election to take action, knowing that the Biden administration may be hesitant to intervene. He may also be influenced by Arab nations in the Persian Gulf, who have normalized relations with Israel and may discourage further escalation.
Israeli leaders are calling for a strong response to the attacks and are seeking support from the international community, particularly the United States. They view the conflict with Iran as a critical battle for the free and civilized world.
In conclusion, the situation between Israel and Iran-backed groups is volatile, with potential for further escalation. The upcoming election, differing risk tolerances, and international relationships all play a role in shaping the response to the attacks. It is essential for all parties involved to consider the potential consequences of their actions and work towards a peaceful resolution. To regenerate means to restore or renew something to its original state or condition. It can also refer to the process of growth or renewal, such as the regeneration of cells or tissues in the body. Additionally, it can mean to revive or reinvigorate something that has become weakened or worn out.
Source link