Cautious Speculation & Combative Rhetoric: The Looming Threat of an Iranian Strike Against Israel
THE US AND ITS ALLIES believe a major missile or drone strike by Iran against military and government targets in Israel is imminent. Foreign diplomatic missions have begun preparing for a potential strike. According to a report by Bloomberg which cites an informed source, this includes the establishment of “contingency plans for evacuation amid requests from Israeli authorities about emergency supplies like generators and satellite phones,” further noting that they were “not aware of any western missions planning immediate evacuation.” If a direct Iranian strike on an Israeli city were to occur, it would mark a significant escalation of hostilities as it would be the first time Iran has directly attacked Israel since it launched its campaign in the Gaza Strip following Hamas’ attack on October 7.
While speaking to Radio Zamaneh Persian, Oxford University Researcher and Acting Editor of Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory, Yassamine Mather, stated, “It is difficult to predict the type of response that will come from Iran. But if Iran attacks [Israel] directly, both Israel and the United States will respond with direct military force.”
Professor of Physics at the University of Paris and an expert on issues concerning Iran’s nuclear program, Mehran Mostafavi, shared that the possibility of war between Iran and Israel is close to “zero.” However, Mostafavi noted that these crises, which elicit the exchange of militarized rhetoric are “fatal for the democratic movement” of the Iranian people. During a conversation with Radio Zamaneh Persian, Mostafavi said:
The forces of the Islamic Republic have been attacked by Israel several times in Syria. Israel’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities or the killing of several Iranians [working in the nuclear program] in Iran should also be added to the list. In all these cases, although the Islamic Republic had threatened to attack, it did not do so, or its proxies attacked the American forces. But this time there is a difference and that is that Israel has attacked ‘Iranian soil.’ It means the same part of the Iranian embassy in Syria, which is considered Iranian soil, and in some way the ‘status’ of the Islamic Republic has been questioned. The Islamic Republic knows that it cannot fight a war against Israel, especially with the United States as its ally, especially given yet another declaration of support for Israel against Iran’s attack by US President Joe Biden. So there is no doubt about this issue. In essence, America tells Israel that we will completely guarantee your security [and that] America will definitely stand by Israel.
ON THE SAME DAY as Ayatollah Khamenei vowed that Israel “must be punished and it shall be,” Israel’s Foreign Affairs Minister Israel Katz took to social media platform, X, making sure to tag Khamenei’s X account stating, “If Iran attacks from its own territory, Israel will respond and attack in Iran @khamenei_ir.”
More recently, during a press conference at the Tel Nof airbase in southern Israel on Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke with reporters while standing in front of American-made F-15 fighter jets, in what has since been the most evident display of the ‘ironclad’ ties between the US and Israel. Addressing the press, Netanyahu stated that his administration has begun the preparation for “meet[ing] the security needs of the state of Israel, both in defense and in attack.” As for the guiding principle of these ‘preparations’, the Israeli Prime Minister did not mince words, “We established a simple principle, whoever hurts us, we hurt them.”
Since October 7, the Biden administration’s rhetoric has admittedly been clear and consistent. In the words of Deputy Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh during a press conference following the killing of three US troops in Jordan, “We don’t seek a wider war with Iran…we don’t seek further conflict, we don’t want to see this widen out into a regional conflict.” However, according to a report by Intecerpt on Monday, “Iran conveyed to the Biden administration that if it involved itself in defending Israel were Tehran to undertake a retaliatory strike, it would consider the United States a viable target as well.”
According to US President Joe Biden, in spite of the US’ immediate intention of avoiding any direct confrontation with Iran, the US’ “commitment to Israeli security against these threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad. Let me say it again, ironclad.” That being said, Bloomberg reports, “while the US has pushed Israel for a cease-fire in Gaza, the Biden administration has also signaled it’s prepared to back the country in the event of an attack by Iran or its proxies.”
DESPITE THE MILITARIZED RHETORIC, US officials have said that everything depends on the particular nature of an Iranian attack. According to World Affairs editor Julian Burger and Diplomatic editor, Patrick Wintour, of The Guardian, “If Israel intercepts incoming missiles or drones, or if they fall harmlessly wide of their mark, the Biden administration will appeal to Netanyahu’s government not to act rashly. If any Iranian attack causes significant Israeli casualties either on Israeli soil or at any Israeli mission or institution abroad, however, Israel would be entitled to a forceful response in the eyes of the administration.”
While the nature of an Iranian attack remains to be seen, the Wall Street Journal has most recently reported that, “Israel is preparing for a direct attack from Iran on southern or northern Israel as soon as Friday or Saturday, according to a person familiar with the matter.” Likewise, having spoken to someone “briefed by the Iranian leadership,” the WSJ further reports that, “while plans to attack are being discussed, no final decision [regarding its date] has been made.”
Morad Farhadpour, an author and translator of critical theory works in Iran, states that in the realm of geopolitics, the ambiguous conditions of “neither war nor peace” have primarily benefited both regional and global powers. This situation allows them to advance their exceptional interests and fundamentalist viewpoints. Despite this, he does not dismiss the possibility of war.
