Israel is reportedly unable to agree on a response to the overnight barrage of more than 300 Iranian drones and missiles fired in response to Israel’s own attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus on April 1.
According to the Israeli army, 99 percent of the projectiles were intercepted by its jets and those of its allies, including the United States and Jordan. Others were stopped by Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, which was acquired and operated with U.S. help.
While Western diplomats and US President Joe Biden have reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that they will not support further retaliation, some analysts suspect that last night’s attacks could be part of a broader ploy to keep the US close to Israel Allies to include war in a larger region.
Lay the foundation stone on April 1st?
In deciding how Israel might respond to the overnight attack, analysts have focused on Israel’s own attack on the Iranian consulate on April 1.
That attack, which killed two generals and five officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was carried out without regard to Israel’s allies, who were only notified shortly before the attack, according to at least one analyst Al Jazeera spoke to .
Hamidreza Azizi, visiting researcher at SWP Berlin, outlined two scenarios, both based on the motivations for the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate.
In the first scenario, the Israeli attack occurred without any thought about the consequences. Second, the attack was a deliberate attempt to draw Iran into a regional war and shift U.S. and Western focus from Israel’s war on Gaza to the region’s bogeyman, Iran.
In both scenarios, US involvement would be crucial.
Despite its status as a regional superpower, Israel – overwhelmed by the six-month war against Gaza – would have little chance against Iran’s standing army of at least 580,000 men, supplemented by around 200,000 trained reserve forces spread across the army and the IRGC.
“Netanyahu’s plan is clear: He wants to divert attention from the war in Gaza and draw the United States and other Western allies back to the Middle East,” said Nomi Bar-Yaacov, an associate fellow at Chatham House.
“Given the close ties between Israel and the US and Israel’s dependence on US aid, Israel should have informed the US that it was planning an attack on the Iranian consulate building where the IRGC is based.
“For Israel not to do this, it crossed a red line. Israel’s motives…must be questioned. “An attack on a foreign consulate constitutes an attack on foreign soil under international law, and it is clear that Netanyahu knew he was crossing the line and that Iran would respond with force,” she said.
For years, Iran has been exerting constant pressure on Israel through its proxies, not least Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has been exchanging fire with Israel since October 7.
Eyes on the price
Analysts say Netanyahu’s motivations for seeking to draw the U.S. into the war likely run deeper than just Israel’s interests, analysts say, and likely reflect causes close to his heart.
Polls in Israel show the prime minister’s popularity is at a critical low. After Netanyahu built his reputation on claims that only he and his Likud party stood between Israelis and oblivion, the surprise attack by Hamas-led militants on October 7 severely damaged his reputation.
“Israel’s options will be most influenced by how Netanyahu, embattled at home and abroad, will choose to exploit Western sympathy for Tel Aviv in the wake of Iran’s widely publicized attack,” said HA Hellyer, a security expert in the Middle East at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Royal United Services Institute.
In the months leading up to October, popular discontent with Netanyahu grew after his far-right government tried to push through changes that would hamper Israel’s independent judiciary.
In the months since October 7, protests have mounted against his handling of the Gaza war, amid a perception that he has little interest in securing the release of the remaining Israeli prisoners captured in the attack became.
The protests not only increased, but also developed into demonstrations against him and his rule.
Even the US appeared to have lost patience with Netanyahu when Benny Gantz, a member of Israel’s War Cabinet, received a high-profile invitation to visit Washington, DC for talks.
Netanyahu has worked to regain lost ground, seizing every opportunity to put himself at the forefront of a wave of nationalism that has left many in Israel reluctant to call for an end to the war.
“A turning point”
Regardless of how Israel presents itself in this latest clash, however, it is the United States that is orchestrating the game.
“What we have heard so far is that the US has no interest in war and is signaling that there will be a unified Western diplomatic response to Iran, while at the same time calling for restraint,” Azizi said.
With the US signals, Netanyahu’s move seems to be in danger.
“We are at a turning point and the only solution is diplomatic,” Bar-Yaacov said. “A harsh military response risks plunging the region into further unrest.”
Diplomatically, Israel’s response to the attack mirrored its response to the earlier attack, with its ambassador to the United Nations calling a UN Security Council meeting on the issue and again attempting to mobilize international opinion behind Israel despite this latest attack be Israel’s own answer.
Additionally, because Iran is less likely to bear costs for its attack on Israel, it risks widening divisions both within its own cabinet and in Israeli society if no action is taken.
“If [Netanyahu] “If DC thinks that DC will refuse to support an attack on Iran itself, then attacking numerous proxies simultaneously could be an alternative option,” Hellyer said.