‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 192: European countries urge Israel not to respond to Iran attack; Israeli army targets Gazans returning north

QassamMuaddi

April 15, 2024

Germany, France and the UK called upon Israel “not to escalate” after Iran’s strike on Saturday. Israel killed 43 Palestinians attempting to return home to north Gaza as Hamas presents a new counter-proposal for a ceasefire.

Casualties

• 33,729 + killed* and at least 76,371 wounded in the Gaza Strip.
• 466+ Palestinians killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.**
• Israel revises its estimated October 7 death toll down from 1,400 to 1,139.
• 604 Israeli soldiers have been killed since October 7, and at least 6,800 injured.***

*Gaza’s Ministry of Health confirmed this figure on its Telegram channel on April 13, 2024. Some rights groups estimate the death toll to be much higher when accounting for those presumed dead.

** The death toll in the West Bank and Jerusalem is not updated regularly. According to the PA’s Ministry of Health on April 5, this is the latest figure.

*** This figure is released by the Israeli military, showing the soldiers whose names “were allowed to be published.” The number of Israeli soldiers wounded is according to Israeli media reports.

Key Developments

• Israel kills 43 Palestinians, wounds 62 in the past 24 hours across Gaza, raising the death toll since October 7 to 33,729 and the number of wounded to 76,371, according to the Gaza health ministry.
• Hamas responds to latest ceasefire proposal, presents its own new proposal that reportedly includes phased pauses in fighting.
• Germany, France and the UK urge Israel not to respond to Iran’s attack, as the EU mulls new sanctions on Iran.
• Iran says its response to Israel’s attack on its consulate earlier this month was “logical and responsible.”
• Israeli army radio says four Israeli soldiers were wounded in a landmine explosion at the border with Lebanon.
• Israeli Finance Minister and ultra-nationalist settler Bezalel Smotrich calls for full Israeli control of Gaza.
• Israel releases two Palestinian medics in Gaza after 50 days of detention. Six other medics remain detained.
• Israeli army shoots at Palestinians attempting to return to the northern Gaza Strip, killing one girl.
• The UN says 41% of its aid to Gaza was stopped from reaching the northern Gaza Strip.
• Israeli settlers continue attacks on Palestinian villages across the occupied West Bank, following a weekend of pogroms that burned down dozens of homes and properties, and left several Palestinians dead.
• Palestinian human rights groups say Israel is obstructing lawyers’ visits to Palestinian detainees, as Itamar Ben-Gvir vows to make conditions worse for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli detention.

Israel attacks Palestinians in Gaza as they attempt to return north

The Gaza-based Palestinian health ministry announced that 43 Palestinians were killed by Israeli airstrikes, their bodies arriving at the Gaza Strip’s remaining hospitals alongside 62 other wounded people over the past 24 hours.

Meanwhile, in the area of Gaza City, Palestinians found several dead bodies under sand mounds made by Israeli forces in Beit Lahia, north of the city. Israeli artillery also shelled the north and east of Gaza city.

In the central Gaza Strip, Israeli forces opened fire at crowds of displaced Palestinians as they attempted to return to their homes in the northern Gaza Strip through the Wadi Gaza bridge. A five-year-old girl was reported killed after she was shot in the head by the Israeli army. Israeli forces also stopped thousands of displaced Palestinians from returning to their homes after entering Gaza city through al-Rashid street.

Meanwhile, Israeli forces continued to bomb al-Nuseirat refugee camp, and al-Maghazi refugee camp in central Gaza.

In the southern Gaza Strip, Israeli forces bombed the east of Khan Younis, while Palestinian medical teams recovered tens of dead bodies from previous bombings, more than a week after Israel’s withdrawal from the city. The Palestinian civil defense called upon the International Red Cross to provide body bags due to dwindling supply in Gaza.

Hamas presents a new counter-proposal for ceasefire

Hamas responded on Sunday to the latest Israeli ceasefire proposal presented through Egyptian and Qatari intermediates, putting forward a new counter-proposal.

On its Telegram account, the Palestinian group said on Sunday that it advanced a new proposal after internal consultation with the group’s leadership in Palestine.

On Sunday, Al-Jazeera reported from “sources close to negotiations” that Hamas’s proposal involves three 42-day-long phases of ceasefires, including captive exchanges.

The group proposed an Israeli withdrawal to the Gaza borders from all areas of the Strip during the first phase and a permanent ceasefire to be announced during the second phase, allowing for an exchange of captives.

According to reports, Hamas proposed to release one Israeli civilian captive for every 30 Palestinian captives, and one Israeli military captive for every 50 Palestinian captives, including 30 Palestinians serving high sentences in Israeli prisons.

Hamas’s proposal insisted on allowing displaced Palestinians to return to the north of Gaza, and the beginning of reconstruction in the Gaza Strip during the third phase.

For its part, Netanyahu’s office released a statement by the Israeli Mossad, saying that Hamas had “given a negative response” to Israel’s ceasefire proposal.

The Mossad added that Hamas’ top leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, “doesn’t want a humanitarian deal and the return of hostages”.

Mossad also accused Sinwar of exploiting the crisis with Iran to “create a regional escalation,” stressing that Israel will continue its war to “achieve its goals.”

Ceasefire negotiations have been at a deadlock for months, with Israel rejecting a number of proposals set forward by Hamas, despite mounting pressure from within Israel to secure the release of the Israeli captives being held in Gaza.

Iran stands by its retaliatory strike on Israel, as countries urge restraint from Israel

The Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson, Nasser Kanaani, said on Sunday that his country’s missile and drone attack on Israel on Saturday was “self-defense”, in response to Israel’s attack on its consulate in Damascus, two weeks ago.

Kanaani added that the Iranian attack on Israel was “professional, logical, and responsible.” The Iranian diplomat also called on the U.S. to “accept Iran’s actions instead of pursuing irresponsible steps, “remarking that Iran doesn’t want any more tension in the region.

Meanwhile, the German foreign secretary, Annalena Baerbock, said that “the Iranian regime pushed the region to the edge of the abyss,” by its attack on Israel last weekend.

The German official urged Israel to commit to diplomatic action, in order to maintain the “defensive victory” it achieved, according to her, by intercepting part of Iran’s missiles and drones on Saturday.

For his part, the British foreign secretary, David Cameron, said that Iran’s attack on Israel “has failed,” urging Israel “not to escalate.” Cameron added that the UK will study further sanctions on Iran.

French President Emmanuel Macron also said that it was necessary “to convince Israel not to respond to Iran’s attack.”

The French leader said that his country was “concerned about escalation in the region,” adding that France will “stand by Israel and its protection to the extent possible.” Macron noted that he is maintaining communications with Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu and other countries in the region.

Israeli forces kill Palestinian teen in Nablus

Israeli forces killed a Palestinian teenager in a military raid on Nablus early on Monday. The victim was identified as Yazan Eshtayyeh, 17, a student at the Nablus industrial college.

Medical sources at the Rafidia hospital in Nablus said that Eshtayyeh arrived wounded with live fire in the chest, and died shortly after. Medical sources added that another Palestinian was seriously wounded in the stomach, and another lightly wounded in the foot.

Local sources reported that undercover Israeli forces entered the Mureij neighborhood in the city and took over several rooftops, before more troops raided the city.

Confrontations took place between raiding forces and local youth, during which Israeli forces fired live munition and tear gas. Israeli forces arrested a Palestinian in the city.

Meanwhile, more Israeli raids were reported across the West Bank. According to the Palestinian Prisoners’ Club, Israeli forces arrested 25 Palestinians overnight.

Since October 7, Israel has arrested more than 8,100 Palestinians from across the occupied Palestinian territory. Currently, at least 9,400 Palestinians are held in Israeli jails, including 71 women, 200 children, and more than 3,500 detainees without charges.

With the killing of Yazan Shtayyeh, the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces or settlers since October 7 has risen to 466, and 147 since the beginning of 2024.

 

Israel beat Iran — for now

Zack Beauchamp

Iran’s Saturday attack on Israel was a military failure. But things could still get a lot worse.

When Iran launched a large retaliatory drone and missile assault on Israel on Saturday night, it raised fears that the Middle East was on the precipice of a regional war. But by Sunday morning, the situation looked far less dire.

Iran had telegraphed elements of its attack and its willingness to end the two-week period of hostilities there. And assisted by the United States and its Arab neighbors, Israel shot down 99 percent of the drones and missiles heading in its direction. Those strikes that got through did not kill anyone, doing minor damage to a military base and injuring a child.

If this sounds like an Israeli victory, that’s because it was.

Two weeks earlier, Israel escalated its several-year-old assassination campaign against top Iranian security figures by killing a senior Iranian general at the country’s embassy in Syria — a brazen move given that states generally treat embassies as militarily out-of-bounds. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei billed Tehran’s response as “punishment” for that attack, but the failure to do significant harm illustrated that Israel is fairly well shielded from Iran’s vaunted drone and missile fleet.

Iran “had to realize that any strike on Israel would benefit Israel’s end game far more than Iran’s. That they chose to attack anyway shows one again that strategy is always the victim of emotion,” writes Afshon Ostovar, an expert on the Iranian military at the Naval Postgraduate School.

Israel hit Iran in an especially harsh way and more or less got away with it. But this does not mean things are stable between Israel and Iran. Far from it.

The immediate question is whether Israel’s leadership understands when to leave well enough alone. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has proven himself reckless during the Gaza war and depends on some exceptionally extreme governing partners to stay in power. The United States is trying to restrain him — with President Joe Biden reportedly telling Netanyahu to “take the win” — but it’s unclear if he will.

And even if Israel chooses restraint for now this episode may have permanently raised the risk of a wider war between Jerusalem and Tehran.

What was Iran thinking?

When news of Iran’s attack broke Saturday night, a former US military officer who studies Iran texted me skeptically. “None of these drones get through,” he correctly predicted.

Iran had indeed chosen a curious strategy. 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.

There are two basic ways to think about Iran’s intent in light of this failure.

It’s entirely possible that Iran miscalculated. In this scenario, Iran attempted to do real damage to Israel and simply failed to appreciate its enemies’ capabilities. Leading military analysts and defense reporters see this interpretation as consistent with the structure of Iran’s strike, particularly its use of ballistic missiles and targeting of a military base in Israel’s south.

But it’s also possible Iran didn’t intend to do serious damage to Israel. In this second scenario, Tehran merely aimed for a symbolic strike so it wasn’t seen as backing down after Israel struck its embassy.

There’s precedent for this. After the United States killed Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard Quds Force, in 2020, Iran’s military retaliation was limited to firing missiles at a US airbase — a response successfully calibrated not to force the United States to retaliate further.

Indeed, Iran is publicly signaling a similar intent: An official government account tweeted that “the matter can be deemed concluded” even before the first drone reached Israeli airspace. That’s as close to publicly saying “this is a fake attack” as it gets in international relations.

If Iran wasn’t intending serious damage, then the attack wasn’t as obviously a failure — but it still looks like a kind of strategic defeat. Iran’s ineffectual response sends a signal that Israel can attack Iranian interests with relative impunity because it is outclassed by Israel and its allies.

How things could calm down — or get worse

With Iran’s retaliation largely a dud, Israel is in a stronger position than it was before it hit the Damascus embassy.

Israel conducted arguably its most politically risky assassination of an Iranian military commander yet — one that could have triggered an outright war. And it emerged not just unscathed, but having demonstrated that its homeland appears safe from direct Iranian assault in the immediate future. The mass Iranian assault also seems to have galvanized Israel’s Republican supporters in Congress, where an aid package has been held up for months as part of the fight over support for Ukraine.

But if Israel responds aggressively to Iran’s attack, all bets are off.

Any major retaliation would force an Iranian response, potentially leading to an escalatory cycle that ends in a full-scale war. This would certainly pull in Iran’s regional proxies, most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon, and would result in tremendous amounts of death. Even if this disaster is averted, an Israeli response would infuriate the American government — which both played a critical role in intercepting Iran’s missile barrage and are strongly opposing any future Israeli retaliation.

Israeli escalation would snatch strategic defeat from the jaws of victory. Yet Israel’s government is reportedly considering it anyway. A source told reporter Ronen Bergman that “if the [internal government] talks were broadcast live on YouTube, you’d have 4 million people clamoring at Ben Gurion airport trying to get out of here.”

Prior to October 7, Netanyahu had a reputation for being cautious about using force. But since the Hamas attack, he has been astonishingly aggressive — embracing a maximalist, open-ended campaign in Gaza that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians while putting Israel on the road to strategic defeat. The general sense among Israeli analysts is that Netanyahu’s shift is in large part political: With his poll numbers in the toilet and a radically right-wing coalition, he needs war to stay in power (and keep himself out of jail). This politically cornered Netanyahu might be open to taking more risks — including the risk of a wider confrontation with Tehran.

The cooler heads in Israel seem to recognize reality. When war cabinet member Benny Gantz vowed that “this event isn’t over yet,” he also said that “we will build a regional coalition and we will make Iran pay the price at a time and in a manner that we choose” — framing that at least implies that Israel isn’t planning imminent unilateral action.

So Israel might yet get out of this mess without a major disaster. Yet experts also warn that this attack might have longer-term destabilizing ramifications.

“Even if Israel chooses not to retaliate now, we are not quite back to where we were before. Status quo has changed with the precedent of a large-scale Iranian attack on Israel,” writes Thomas Juneau, a Middle East scholar at the University of Ottawa, who predicted “a higher baseline of tension and violence” going forward.

A post-attack statement from Hossein Salami, the leader of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, supports Juneau’s analysis. Salami said Iran has “decided to create a new equation” with Israel, one where any Israeli attack against Iranian personnel anywhere will be met with direct attacks by Iran on Israel. Previously, Israel had managed to conduct strikes on Iranian interests in places like Syria without direct retaliation — which carries greater risks of escalation to out-and-out war.

On Saturday night, the term “World War III” began trending on Twitter/X. It’s safe to say at this point that these fears were overblown. But the Middle East remains a powder keg — one that’s slightly more stuffed with gunpowder than it was before.

 

US diplomacy gains traction in Middle East

M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

With the outbreak of Israel’s Gaza war six months ago, a narrative mushroomed in the morass of the low, soft marshy land of geopolitics that the United States is caught in a quagmire that would compel its retrenchment in Eurasia and severely weaken the Biden administration’s strategy in the Asia-Pacific.

 

To what extent Moscow and Beijing subscribed to that narrative is debatable, given their scepticism drawn from past experience with the US foreign policy strategies. Be that as it may, what emerges is that NATO’s eastward expansion, the end of western hegemony in the Middle East and the US’ containment strategy against China are inter-related. The Biden Administration’s challenge is to adapt to a new normal.

Of course, there are variables in the situation — principally, the uncertainties in the future of US engagement. Within the US, there are radically different visions of the country’s role in the world and its relationships with allies. Abroad, there are concerns about American isolationism and reliability regardless of which candidate wins the elections in November.

In the past week alone, although the tensions in Middle East were spiking dangerously, that didn’t deter US President Joe Biden from hosting a truly historic state visit by Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. The subtext, predictably, was the tensions in Taiwan Straits. The US and Japan signed over 70 defence agreements and there is much talk about the letter’s induction into AUKUS and the Five Eyes. (here and here) Biden and Kishida also took part in a first-ever Trilateral Leaders Summit with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of the Philippines, where the focus was on containment of China.(here and here)

Again, Washington announced sanctions against the import of Russian-origin aluminium, copper, and nickel and coordinated with the UK to crack down on the trade of these metals on global exchanges with a view “to target the revenue Russia can earn” to fund its military operation in Ukraine.

Indeed, the agenda of NATO foreign ministers meeting on the seventy-fifth anniversary of the alliance at Brussels on April 3-4 included a discussion on “how NATO could assume more responsibility for coordinating military equipment and training for Ukraine anchoring this within a robust NATO framework.” That doesn’t look like a US retrenchment from Eurasia.

In fact, NATO secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg underscored that  “Ukraine will become a member of NATO. It is a question of when, not if.” He also co-related the Ukraine war with the rising tensions over Taiwan. In his words, “Russia’s friends in Asia are vital for continuing its war of aggression. China is propping up Russia’s war economy. In return, Moscow is mortgaging its future to Beijing.” Stoltenberg was articulating the US’ viewpoint.

Biden raised with Chinese President Xi Jinping during their telephone conversation on April 2 Washington’s “concerns over the PRC’s support for Russia’s defence industrial base and its impact on European and transatlantic security”!

Clearly, although the US and NATO are unprepared for waging an industrial war with Russia in Europe, it isn’t as if the US is in retreat, either. NATO’s upcoming Washington Summit in July is sure to be dominated by the Ukraine war and the dual containment of Russia and China.

According to some reports, there is already some talk among NATO countries — France, the UK and Poland — that if the Russian offensive reaches the Dnieper and Ukrainian military collapses out of exhaustion, they should intervene to hold the frontline.

Biden addressed the Congress with a communication dated April recommending the extension for one more year of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14024 (dated April 15, 2021) “with respect to specified harmful foreign activities of the Government of the Russian Federation.” In the US’ assessment, the war in Ukraine is far from over and it will be a long haul for Russia to gain control over the whole country.

Suffice to say, the Middle East crisis is anything but a “stand alone” event. Make no mistake that the BRICS membership of four Middle Eastern countries, who were allies of the US, marks the eclipse of petrodollar. The decision dovetails into the Russian project of “de-dollarisation” and rollback of US hegemony.

One of the four regional states joining BRICS is Iran, an ardent supporter of “de-dollarisation”, with which the Biden Administration keeps contact over the Middle East situation. The latest developments following Israel’s Damascus attack have led to an intensification of the contacts aimed at avoiding any misunderstandings.

These contacts have reached a qualitatively new level lately. Some degree of coordination is possible now, as Iran’s calibrated drone and missile strikes on Israel on Saturday night implied.

A commentary by the Iranian news agency IRNA spelt out seven “dimensions” of Iran’s retaliation. Now, the US undoubtedly has a moderating influence on Israel. According to reports from DC, Biden has drawn the red line that the US refuses to participate in any future Israeli retaliation against Iran’s unprecedented direct attack on Saturday night.

Such a dramatic turn to the power dynamic in the region was simply unthinkable up until now. IRNA noted that it indicated “an understanding of this matter by the main supporter of the Zionist regime.” The big question now is where is all this leading to.

To be sure, the US diplomacy is gaining traction and it will have a positive effect on downstream events relating to the Palestine problem. During the past 6-month period, Washington’s networking with its traditional allies — Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, in particular — has intensified. 

As it matures steadily as practical cooperation to steer Gaza out of the dark tunnel of war and bloodshed, it will add gravitas to the US’ overall standing as peacemaker and even enable it to regain the  leadership role it previously enjoyed, in a new form.

The future trajectory of US-Iran contacts remains to be seen. Will the nascent stirrings die a sudden death? Or, will they generate a critical mass of mutual confidence so that the deeply troubled ties turn into a working relationship? The US-Iran mutual rhetoric has mellowed considerably in the recent period.

Credit must be given to Tehran for reading the tea leaves early enough, as incipient differences began cropping up between Washington and Tel Aviv. Tehran sensed correctly that those differences might turn into discord.

Meanwhile, the US is realistic enough to understand that the containment strategy against Iran has outlived its utility and further pursuit of it becomes meaningless when regional states are preferring reconciliation.

In effect, Iran has gained much strategic depth and strengthened its strategic autonomy — thanks to the strengthening of its ties with Russia and China and rapprochement with Saudi Arabia. The profound meaning of Iran’s direct missile strike against Israel cannot be lost on anyone.

The IRNA commentary says: “Iranian attack was the first direct confrontation between the Islamic Republic and the fake Zionist regime. This is very significant in terms of historical issues. Effective attacks deep inside the occupied territories has been an unfulfilled dream of Islamic countries since 1967, which have now come true thanks to efforts by the cradle of resistance in the region. For the first time ever, Iranian aircraft attacked enemies of Al-Aqsa Mosque in the skies over this holy site.” 

The US knows Iran to be a tough negotiator who will not compromise on its interests. Washington will look for daylight in the Russian-Iranian relationship, which holds tantalising possibilities to isolate Moscow in the conditions under sanctions.

Iran makes an ideal energy partner for European economies replacing Russia. Suffice to say, the chances are that the endgames in Ukraine war and the Israel-Arab conflict, as they run on parallel tracks, may create synergy going forward.

 

ScottRitter: The Missiles of April

The “Missiles of April” represent a sea-change moment in Middle Eastern geopolitics — the establishment of Iranian deterrence that impacts both Israel and the United States.

I’ve been writing about Iran for more than two decades. In 2005, I made a trip to Iran to ascertain the “ground truth” about that nation, a truth which I then incorporated into a book, Target Iran, laying out the U.S.-Israeli collaboration to craft a justification for a military attack on Iran designed to bring down its theocratic government. I followed this book up with another, Dealbreaker, in 2018, which brought this U.S.-Israeli effort up to date.

 

Back in November 2006, in an address to Columbia University’s School of International Relations, I underscored that the United States would never abandon my “good friend” Israel until, of course, we did. What could precipitate such an action, I asked? I noted that Israel was a nation drunk of hubris and power, and unless the United States could find a way to remove the keys from the ignition of the bus Israel was navigating toward the abyss, we would not join Israel in its lemming-like suicidal journey.

The next year, in 2007, during an address to the American Jewish Committee, I pointed out that my criticism of Israel (which many in the audience took strong umbrage against) came from a place of concern for Israel’s future.

I underscored the reality that I had spent the better part of a decade trying to protect Israel from Iraqi missiles, both during my service in Desert Storm, where I played a role in the counter-SCUD missile campaign, and as a United Nations weapons inspector, where I worked with Israeli intelligence to make sure Iraq’s SCUD missiles were eliminated.

“The last thing I want to see,” I told the crowd, “is a scenario where Iranian missiles were impacting on the soil of Israel. But unless Israel changes course, this is the inevitable outcome of a policy driven more by arrogance than common sense.”

On Monday night, early Tuesday morning, April 13-14, my concerns were played out live before an international audience — Iranian missiles rained down on Israel, and there was nothing Israel could do to stop them.

As had been the case a little more than 33 years prior, when Iraqi SCUD missiles overcame U.S. and Israeli Patriot missile defenses to strike Israel dozens of times over the course of a month and a half, Iranian missiles, integrated into a plan of attack which was designed to overwhelm Israeli missile defense systems, struck designated targets inside Israel with impunity.

Despite having employed an extensive integrated anti-missile defense system comprised of the so-called “Iron Dome” system, U.S.-made Patriot missile batteries, and the Arrow and David’s Sling missile interceptors, along with U.S., British, and Israeli aircraft, and U.S. and French shipborne anti-missile defenses, well over a dozen Iranian missiles struck heavily-protected Israeli airfields and air defense installations.

The Iranians hit at least two runways, taking them out of service, and at least five warehouse-type structures (this from satellite imagery taken after the attack.)

Iran gave Israel a five-hour advance warning to move high value items (F-35s). Moreover, Iran did not attack barracks, headquarters, or targets that would produce casualties.

The damage may have been minor, but the message is clear — Iran can hit any target it wants to, at any time.

Israel Had Hit Iranian Territory

The Iranian missile attack on Israel did not come out of the blue, so to speak, but rather was retaliation for an April 1 Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate building, in Damascus, Syria, that killed several senior Iranian military commanders. While Israel has carried out attacks against Iranian personnel inside Syria in the past, the April 1 strike differed by not only killing very senior Iranian personnel, but by striking what was legally speaking sovereign Iranian territory — the Iranian consulate.

From an Iranian perspective, the attack on the consulate was a redline which, if not retaliated against, would erase any notion of deterrence, opening the door for even more brazen Israeli military action, up to and including direct attacks on Iran.

Weighing against retaliation, however, were a complex web of interwoven policy objectives which would probably be mooted by the kind of large-scale conflict between Israel and Iran that could be precipitated by any meaningful Iranian retaliatory strike on Israel.

First and foremost, Iran has been engaged in a strategic policy premised on a pivot away from Europe and the United States, and toward Russia, China, and the Eurasian landmass.

This shift has been driven by Iran’s frustration over the U.S.-driven policy of economic sanctions, and the inability and/or unwillingness on the part of the collective West to find a path forward that would see these sanctions lifted. The failure of the Iranian nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) to produce the kind of economic opportunities that had been promised at its signing has been a major driver behind this Iranian eastward pivot.

In its stead, Iran has joined both the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the BRICS forum and has directed its diplomatic energies into seeing Iran thoroughly and productively integrated into both groups.

A general war with Israel would play havoc on these efforts.

Secondly, but no less important in the overall geopolitical equation for Iran, is the ongoing conflict in Gaza. This is a game-changing event, where Israel is facing strategic defeat at the hands of Hamas and its regional allies, including the Iranian-led axis of resistance. For the first time ever, the issue of Palestinian statehood has been taken up by a global audience.

This cause is further facilitated by the fact that the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, formed from a political coalition which is vehemently opposed to any notion of Palestinian statehood, finds itself in danger of collapse as a direct result of the consequences accrued from the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023, and the subsequent failure of Israel to defeat Hamas militarily or politically.

Israel is likewise hampered by the actions of Hezbollah, which has held Israel in check along its northern border with Lebanon, and non-state actors such as the pro-Iranian Iraqi militias and the Houthi of Yemen which have attacked Israel directly and, in the case of the Houthi, indirectly, shutting down critical sea lines of communication which have the result of strangling the Israeli economy.

But it is Israel that has done the most damage to itself, carrying out a genocidal policy of retribution against the civilian population of Gaza. The Israeli actions in Gaza are the living manifestation of the very hubris and power-driven policies I warned about back in 2006-2007.

Then, I said that the U.S. would not be willing to be a passenger in a policy bus driven by Israel that would take us off the cliff of an unwinnable war with Iran.

Through its criminal behavior toward the Palestinian civilians in Gaza, Israel has lost the support of much of the world, putting the United States in a position where it will see its already-tarnished reputation irreparably damaged, at a time when the world is transitioning from a period of American-dominated singularity to a BRICS-driven multipolarity, and the U.S. needs to retain as much clout in the so-called “global south” as possible.

A Sea-Change Moment

The U.S. has tried — unsuccessfully — to take the keys out of the ignition of Netanyahu’s suicide bus ride. Faced with extreme reticence on the part of the Israeli government when it comes to altering its policy on Hamas and Gaza, the administration of President Joe Biden has begun to distance itself from the policies of Netanyahu and has put Israel on notice that there would be consequences for its refusal to alter its actions in Gaza to take U.S. concerns into account. 

Any Iranian retaliation against Israel would need to navigate these extremely complicated policy waters, enabling Iran to impose a viable deterrence posture designed to prevent future Israeli attacks while making sure that neither its policy objectives regarding a geopolitical pivot to the east, nor the elevation of the cause of Palestinian statehood on the global stage, were sidetracked.

The Iranian attack on Israel appears to have successfully maneuvered through these rocky policy shoals. It did so first and foremost by keeping the United States out of the fight. Yes, the United States participated in the defense of Israel, helping shoot down scores of Iranian drones and missiles.

This engagement was to the benefit of Iran, since it only reinforced the fact that there was no combination of missile defense capability that could, in the end, prevent Iranian missiles from hitting their designated targets.

The targets Iran struck — two air bases in the Negev desert from which aircraft used in the April 1 attack on the Iranian consulate had been launched, along with several Israeli air defense sites — were directly related to the points Iran was trying to make in establishing the scope and scale of its deterrence policy.

First, that the Iranian actions were justified under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter — Iran retaliated against those targets in Israel directly related to the Israeli attack on Iran, and second, that Israeli air defense sites were vulnerable to Iranian attack.

The combined impact of these two factors is that all of Israel was vulnerable to being struck by Iran at any time, and that there was nothing Israel or its allies could do to stop such an attack.

This message resonated not only in the halls of power in Tel Aviv, but also in Washington, DC, where U.S. policy makers were confronted with the uncomfortable truth that if the U.S. were to act in concert with Israel to either participate in or facilitate an Israeli retaliation, then U.S. military facilities throughout the Middle East would be subjected to Iranian attacks that the U.S. would be powerless to stop.

This is why the Iranians placed so much emphasis on keeping the U.S. out of the conflict, and why the Biden administration was so anxious to make sure that both Iran and Israel understood that the U.S. would not participate in any Israeli retaliatory strike against Iran.

The “Missiles of April” represent a sea-change moment in Middle Eastern geopolitics — the establishment of Iranian deterrence that impacts both Israel and the United States.

While emotions in Tel Aviv, especially among the more radical conservatives of the Israeli government, run high, and the threat of an Israeli retaliation against Iran cannot be completely discounted, the fact is the underlying policy objective of Netanyahu over the course of the past 30-plus years, namely to drag the U.S. into a war with Iran, has been put into checkmate by Iran.

Moreover, Iran has been able to accomplish this without either disrupting its strategic pivot to the east or undermining the cause of Palestinian statehood. “Operation True Promise,” as Iran named its retaliatory attack on Israel, will go down in history as one of the most important military victories in the history of modern Iran, keeping in mind that war is but an extension of politics by other means.

The fact that Iran has established a credible deterrence posture without disrupting major policy goals and objectives is the very definition of victory.

 

Kremlin comments on Iran’s strike on Israel

No one would benefit from a conflict between Iran and Israel spiraling out of control, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, voicing hope that the two regional powers will be able to resolve their differences peacefully.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Peskov weighed in on a massive Iranian strike on Israel over the weekend, which West Jerusalem said involved more than 300 drones and missiles. The attack came in response to an alleged Israeli strike on Tehran’s consulate in Damascus, Syria, earlier this month. The strike killed several senior Iranian military personnel.

The Kremlin spokesman said that Russia is “extremely worried about escalating tensions in the region,” urging everyone to exercise restraint.

“Further escalation serves no one’s interests. We advocate that all differences be resolved only by political and diplomatic means,” Peskov added.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has also said that regional tensions are being fueled by “the unresolved nature of numerous crises in the Middle East, primarily in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone.”

It also deplored that the UN Security Council had been unable to “adequately react” to the bombing of the Iranian consulate in Syria – which Iran insists was the reason for its strike in the first place – due to the stance of Western powers on the issue.

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova rejected Israel’s call to condemn Iran’s attack, saying that West Jerusalem had not denounced Ukrainian strikes on Russian regions, and that it regularly provides vocal diplomatic support for Kiev.

In the aftermath of the barrage, Iran declared the end of its military operation against Israel, warning the Jewish state of harsh pushback if it were to retaliate.

Numerous reports indicate that the US wants Israel to exercise caution, which has yet to make a decision on whether to respond. CNN reported, citing an Israeli official, that Netanyahu’s government told the US it is not looking to significantly escalate the situation. However, according to Reuters, the Israeli war cabinet favors retaliation but is divided over its timing and scope.

 

Biden condemns Iran’s strike on Israel: A case study inimperialist hypocrisy

Andre Damon

The imperialist powers have responded to Iran’s strikes on Israel Saturday with an outpouring of condemnation.

“I condemn these attacks in the strongest possible terms,” US President Joe Biden declared, reaffirming “America’s ironclad commitment to the security of Israel.”

The G7 group of imperialist powers said in a statement, “We ... unequivocally condemn in the strongest terms Iran’s direct and unprecedented attack against Israel.” It added, “Iran has further stepped toward the destabilization of the region and risks provoking an uncontrollable regional escalation.”

These statements by the imperialist warmongers, repeated by every major NATO power, are the height of hypocrisy. The forces “provoking an uncontrollable regional escalation” in the Middle East are Israel and its imperialist backers.

Let us get the timeline straight. Iran’s strike was a response to the April 1 attack by Israel on the Iranian embassy in Syria that killed seven top-level Iranian military officers, including two generals.

In response to Israel’s flagrantly illegal and murderous attack on what is, under international law, Iranian soil, the imperialist powers effectively signaled their endorsement. US Ambassador to the UN Robert Wood declared that “terrorist leaders and elements were allegedly present at this facility.” The US, France and the UK vetoed a resolution in the UN Security Council condemning Israel’s attack.

Now, the imperialists are falling all over themselves to condemn Iran’s response to Israel’s action. This is all the more striking given that Iran’s action was largely symbolic. The Iranian government announced Saturday’s strike to countries in the region 72 hours in advance in an effort to limit the impact. As Reuters reported Sunday:

Iran gave wide notice days before Saturday’s drone and missile attack on Israel, allowing mass casualties and rampant escalation to be averted.

The imperialist powers are asserting that they and their proxies can kill as many people as they want, carry out targeted assassinations and act in complete violation of anything resembling international law. But any response, even of the most minimal character, is denounced as a crime. This is the basic law of colonialism and imperialism.

While Biden “condemns” the actions of Iran, he does not extend the same language to Israel’s onslaught against Gaza, which is being funded, armed and politically supported by the United States and other imperialist powers.

Israel is systematically carrying out genocide against the population of Gaza, having already killed at least 40,000 people. It is displacing, starving and bombing an entire population of 2.2 million people and methodically and deliberately murdering doctors, journalists and aid workers.

The genocide in Gaza is developing into a regional war, which can very quickly draw in the entire globe.

To the extent that the Biden administration is stating, generally on background rather than through official pronuncements, that it would prefer that Israel not respond with immediate military strikes, this position is determined by tactical considerations.

Some of these considerations were laid out in an op-ed in the New York Times by Bret Stephens under the headline, “For Israel, Revenge Should Be a Dish Served Cold.”

Stevens wrote:

As a matter of self-defense, Israel has every moral and legal right to respond in kind—and then some. It is not enough for Israel to demonstrate its capacity for defense, as it did over the weekend. It must also reestablish its capacity for deterrence. That is, it needs to show Iran’s leaders that the price for bringing their war against Israel out of the shadows will be unbearably high, and is therefore not to be repeated.

However, Stephens counsels against an all-out assault on Iran. He writes:

Israel has an unfinished war against Hamas in Gaza, and a direct Israeli attack on Iran could trigger a second full-scale war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, if not with Iran itself. Most Israelis understand that particular war will have to be fought sooner or later—perhaps before the end of the summer—and that it will be probably much tougher on them than the Gaza war has been so far. (Emphasis added.)

In other words, it is first necessary to finish the genocide in Gaza before turning to the “much tougher” task of war with Iran.

Sections of the US political establishment are openly advocating a full-scale war, asserting that the Biden administration is not going far enough in supporting an Israeli war against Iran. The Wall Street Journal wrote in an editorial:

The attack should at least cause Mr. Biden and his fellow Democrats to end their cold war with Israel over Gaza and recognize that this is really a war against Iran.

It continued:

Leaders in both parties should also start telling the truth to Americans about the new world of global threats. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are all on the march and working together.

The Israeli cabinet has been deliberating over the past day on what actions to take, and there are evidently divisions within the regime itself. Moreover, while Israel is imperialism’s attack dog in the Middle East, the US is not in complete control of what it will do. In any event, the Biden administration has reaffirmed that if Israel does take action, it will have the full support of the United States government.

Appearing on Meet the Press, White House spokesman John Kirby declared, “Whether and how the Israelis respond is going to be up to them.”

Asked, “If Israel does decide to move forward with retaliatory strikes, will the United States support Israel?” Kirby replied that US “support for Israel’s self-defense will stay ironclad. It will not change.”

The United States responded to the events of October 7 by launching a major military offensive throughout the Middle East, with Iran as the central target. Within days, the US surged an armada of warships and hundreds of aircraft to the region, which it has used to launch dozens of illegal airstrikes over the past six months.

The US offensive in the Middle East is a crucial element of an unfolding global war, with Russia and China as the main targets. The subjugation of Iran, lying at the heart of Eurasia, is a critical component of the United States’ drive for global military domination.

Whatever the immediate developments in the coming days, the regional war throughout the Middle East, as part of an expanding global war, is spiraling dangerously out of control. The world stands closer to nuclear conflict than at any time since the Second World War. Nothing can stop this expanding global war except the development of a mass anti-war movement oriented to and based on the working class.