In an unparalleled assault on Israel on Tuesday evening, Iran reportedly fired 181 ballistic missiles, an act widely construed as an act of war by Israel. Israel is expected to react robustly, although it’s uncertain whether the response might be postponed until the Jewish New Year festivities, celebrated this Thursday and Friday, conclude.
The missile attack, which apparently primarily targeted air force and intelligence bases, did limited damage, allowing Israel the freedom to retort without restrictions.
Following the attack, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed the security cabinet, terming Tehran’s act a severe blunder that would have repercussions.
Members of both the ruling and opposing parties are vociferously vying for a firm response.
As Israel readies its reaction to the onslaught, it is taking into consideration Iran’s oil and nuclear facilities.
Expressing significant concern about the situation, Harris censured Iran’s missile assault on Israel, urging all involved parties to restrain from escalating the conflict.
Israel promises reprisals for the Iranian missile attack, deploying additional troops to Lebanon.
Calls criticising Iran’s decision are growing in power, with Culture minister Miki Zohar remarking, “The Iranian supreme leader will face severe consequences for a seriously flawed decision. This is the beginning of the end of the ill-fated Iranian regime.”
Lawmaker Almog Cohen from the Jewish Strength party, made clear his thoughts, declaring, “Iran has waged war on Israel. This reckless decision will open a Pandora’s box for them.”
Opposition leaders also expressed aggressive responses. Avigdor Lieberman, former defence minister and leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, advocated for an immediate retaliatory strike on Iran, urging Israel to “destroy their oil, gas and nuclear facilities, and demolish the refineries and dams.”
Adding to the chorus of voices, Benny Gantz, the National Unity party leader, asserted, “Iran crossed a red line again. We have cultivated capabilities over the years to strike back at Iran, and the government enjoys our unwavering support to act forcefully and resolutely.”
Following Iran’s comprehensive missile attack in April, which counted over 300 ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as attack drones, Israel retaliated with a pinpoint missile strike in the vicinity of an Iranian nuclear site. The response by Israeli officials was classified as “inadequate” and considered a sign of warning. However, it is predicted that the countermeasure this time will be on a vastly different scale.
Speculation suggests that Kharg Island, Iran’s primary sea terminal for oil exports, and potentially their nuclear facilities might be on Israel’s target list.
Iran has, over decades, strategically built up Hamas, alongside Hizbullah to a lesser extent, as a security measure to deter Israel from assailing Tehran’s nuclear plans. Currently, both organisations are arguably at their lowest point ever, which has purportedly led to Israeli policymakers weighing the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear sites. Israeli leaders are of the belief that Iran is on the brink of becoming a nuclear state.
Proponents of this counterattack argue that the most recent missile attack by Iran affords Israel the legitimacy to respond. Although some of Iran’s nuclear sites are deeply buried and might be beyond the reach of Israeli aircraft, a sufficient amount of damage could be inflicted to potentially put off Tehran’s nuclear program for years.
Journalist Thomas Friedman, who is viewed as having close links with the White House, wrote in a recent New York Times article that the Biden administration is apprehensive that Netanyahu seeks to embroil the US in a direct war with Iran–a war that would involve strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and could inadvertently influence the results of the upcoming November election.
The US would collaborate with Israel and might join in the military countermeasure. However, it is likely that both Biden and Kamala Harris would be hesitant to greenlight any action that might endanger the likelihood of a Democratic win in the presidential election.