Iran should think twice before launching a direct retaliatory attack on Israel, the former head of U.S. Central Command said Wednesday, as the apparent assassination in Tehran of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh again demonstrated the gap in military capabilities between the Mideast foes.
In an exclusive interview with The Washington Times, retired Marine Corps Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie, who led the Pentagon’s Middle East command from March 2019 to April 1, 2022, said it is “unlikely” that leaders in Tehran will decide to launch an all-out assault on Israel. The possibility of a major Israel-Iran war came back to the forefront Wednesday after the killing of Mr. Haniyeh, who was in Tehran to attend Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s inauguration.
Israel has not claimed responsibility for the airstrike that killed the Qatar-based Hamas leader, but Mr. Haniyeh is widely believed to have been atop Jerusalem’s hit list after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack that killed more than 1,200 Israelis and set off a new round of Israeli-Palestinian fighting.
Immediately after Wednesday’s strike, Iran vowed retaliation against the Jewish state. But Gen. McKenzie said Tehran’s theocratic leaders must understand the possible repercussions of its next move.
“I think the Israeli strike — assuming it was Israeli, and we don’t know that — once more just highlights the technological distance between Iran and Israel. And Iran will have to ponder that as they think about striking back at Israel,” Gen. McKenzie said.
“Last time they tried this, on April 13, it was a spectacular failure in all dimensions. And they’ve got to think about that as they think about how they want to respond,” he said. “I do not believe that a massive Iranian response is inevitable. … They’ll do something, I’m sure. I don’t know that it will be a major attack.”
SEE ALSO: Netanyahu vows to do ‘whatever it takes’ to protect Israelis in face of fury over strikes
Iran’s April 13 drone-and-missile attack on Israel was repelled by Israeli and U.S. air defenses, along with help from other Middle Eastern nations such as Jordan. That Iranian attack was itself retaliation for an Israeli strike in Damascus that killed a top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander.
The back-and-forth incidents, which represented the first direct military action by the Iranian state against Israel, threatened to plunge the entire region into a full-blown conflict. Ultimately, though, the two nations stepped back from the brink.
Inevitable escalation?
But the apparent assassination of Mr. Haniyeh comes at an even more tense moment than the previous clash in April. Israel is still reeling from a Hezbollah attack last weekend that killed 12 teenagers in the Israel-controlled Golan Heights. Israel has responded to that attack with more airstrikes in Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon.
Israel for the first time two weeks ago also launched strikes in Yemen, targeting Iran-backed Houthi rebels believed to be responsible for a July drone attack on Tel Aviv that killed one Israeli.
All of that, combined with the ongoing Israeli campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, has ratcheted up fears that escalation in the region is inevitable, if not already here.
Gen. McKenzie said “escalation is certainly possible,” but he cautioned against the idea that preventing such escalation should be the only consideration for policymakers.
“You know, preventing escalation can’t be your highest priority,” he said. “If it is, you need to leave the region. We talk a lot about preventing escalation, and we should. But that can’t be your highest priority. You have to have other priorities.”
Preventing escalation does, in fact, seem to be the Biden administration’s central goal in the region. Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated that Wednesday in an interview with Channel News Asia, just hours after the strike that killed Mr. Haniyeh in Tehran.
“One of the things that we’ve been focused on is trying to make sure that the conflict that emerged in Gaza doesn’t spread, doesn’t go to other places, doesn’t escalate, and we’re going to continue to do that as well,” Mr. Blinken said.
An Iranian response
Attention will now turn to how Iran chooses to respond. Israel certainly expects some retaliation. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled as much Wednesday, vowing that the nation will “exact a heavy price from any aggression against us on any front.”
“There are challenging days ahead of us,” Mr. Netanyahu said.
The Iranian response will be the first test for the Pezeshkian administration. Mr. Pezeshkian was billed as something of a reformer in Tehran, but his government seems set to continue the anti-Israel, anti-American rhetoric and policies that have defined Iran under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s leadership.
Some analysts say Iran is more likely to rely on its regional network of allies — Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria — to target Israel and its interests, rather than use the Iranian military and the IRGC directly. Hezbollah would appear to be the most likely instrument of retribution, given its proximity to northern Israel and the fact that the two sides are already locked in an increasingly violent war.
“There is already likely a discussion going on between Iran and Hezbollah on the scope of such a strike, which would likely target a significant Israeli military installation rather than civilian communities or civil infrastructure,” former Israeli intelligence official Avi Melamed said Wednesday in comments circulated to reporters. “Iran is walking a tightrope in needing to respond without sucking itself and Israel into a broader pattern of escalation that brings a significant Israeli response to its homeland.”
For Israel, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the overarching goal is to dismantle Iran’s proxy network, known as its “axis of resistance,” to the greatest extent possible. Some analysts have questioned whether that’s possible without regime change in Iran.
Gen. McKenzie said the U.S. and its allies can achieve their policy goals — namely, destroying or at least greatly degrading the axis of resistance — without direct action against Tehran.
“Regime change shouldn’t be off the table, but we don’t need to directly pursue it in order to achieve some other objectives in the region,” he said.
• Ben Wolfgang can be reached at bwolfgang@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.