OPINION:
President Biden and many other world leaders are urging Israel not to respond to the massive Iranian drone and missile attack of last weekend. I disagree.
To allow a blatant attempt to inflict death and destruction on an entire nation to go unanswered would be to acquiesce to victimhood status. Although much of the world seems to side with Israel when it is perceived to be a victim, followed by denunciations when it strikes back, this is not the time for Israel to curry favor with those who favor victimhood. I favor survival over victimhood, as all reasonable people should.
I am not especially knowledgeable about military tactics. I have never served in the military (something I now regret). But I do have a working knowledge of recent history. From my knowledge of history I derive a certain understanding of the consequences of appeasement and of failing to confront wanton aggressors. That understanding tells me that a response to Iran’s attack must be forthcoming.
The remaining and very important question is, what kind of response?
Israel is not in the business of inflicting vengeful retribution, even when required to use force to defend itself. Its government, regardless of which party controls it or who is the prime minister, has always considered the welfare of the citizens of Israel and the survival of the Jewish state its principal responsibility. Israel’s enemies seek vengeance; Israel seeks security. This helps to reformulate the fundamental question regarding the response to the Iranian attack.
The reformulation must focus on what kind of response will serve as the most powerful deterrent in order to prevent further Iranian aggression. What action can make the Iranian mullahs realize that their current course of conduct is to their detriment, thereby discouraging them from continuing on that course and, as a consequence, enhancing Israel’s security?
It would seem that the focus must be on the evident failure of the Iranians to achieve any success with their barrage of drones and missiles. They must now know that, despite their considerable arsenal of lethal weapons, they cannot easily penetrate the impressive Israeli defenses. They clearly threw a maximum of weaponry against Israel in order to demonstrate their ability to harm the Jewish state, and they failed.
Now, they need to understand that it is not Israel that is vulnerable but rather that it is Iran. In that regard, it would have been helpful if the United States had been prepared to join this endeavor. But President Biden, in one more demonstration of fecklessness, has publicly signaled to Iran that it does not have to fear an American response and that the United States will not do what is clearly necessary and even essential. Israel will have to go it alone. Fortunately, Israel appears fully capable of doing so.
It would seem that, above all, Israel needs to demonstrate its ability to do to Iran what Iran could not do to Israel: to penetrate Iran’s defenses and show that it can inflict on Iran whatever harm it believes appropriate. This would suggest a targeted attack that inflicts military harm with the promise of more but the demonstration of less.
A single missile strike that reaches its target and destroys that target seems to be the ideal response. It would indicate that Israel has the capacity to deliver destruction when and where it chooses, without causing a large amount of such destruction — yet. A missile strike penetrating Iranian defenses will present a picture of success, whereas Iran presented a picture of failure.
Of course, it is vital that the strike be successful — something that can never be ensured. But by using its ability to manipulate Iran’s computer systems through targeted viruses and other methods, as Israel has previously done, Israel should be able to significantly undermine Iranian defenses, thereby allowing a single missile to penetrate into Iran.
While the strike should cause damage, it should do so in a limited and precise way. There should be no ambiguity about Israel’s infliction of harm. Still, it should be done in a surgical manner, further reinforcing the notion that Israel is technically far superior to Iran.
This limited approach will avoid giving Iran the mantle of victimhood and will not deprive Israel of the right to affirm that status to those who view Israeli victimhood as a virtue. In this manner, Israel can avoid the harsh blowback that the mainstream press and so many governments reserve for it whenever Israel assumes the upper hand in its conflicts with its neighbors.
More importantly, a direct and limited strike into Iranian territory will serve as a powerful warning that Israel is truly in a position to inflict real harm on Iran and other bad actors and is prepared to do so if it so determines it to be necessary for its security.
History affirms that blatant aggression must not be allowed to stand unchallenged. A failure to respond merely whets the appetite of the aggressor. It is in Israel’s interest, however, not to trigger a much greater conflict, even if it would prevail. Thus, while Israel must respond to Iran’s attack, it should do so in a manner that displays its extensive and destructive military power but also shows measured restraint in the use of that power.
• Gerard Leval is a partner in the Washington office of a national law firm. His book, “Lobbying for Equality: Jacques Godard and the Struggle for Jewish Civil Rights During the French Revolution,” was published by HUC Press in 2022.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.