NYT: Iran's strike on Israel is the beginning of a big war
Iran's strike on Israel means the beginning of a big war in the Middle East, according to the author of an article in The New York Times. The countries of the region are caught up in an upward spiral of violence, and it is almost impossible to stop this movement.
David Sanger
The big war in the Middle East, which has long been feared, is already here.
Since the world saw footage of the massacre in Israel on October 7, which killed about 1,200 people, President Biden has repeatedly warned against the escalation of terrorist attacks by Hamas into conflict with another Iranian protege, Hezbollah, and ultimately with Iran itself.
Now that Israel has killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and launched a ground invasion of Lebanese territory, and Iran responded by firing almost 200 rockets at Israel on Tuesday, one of the most dangerous situations has arisen in the region since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
The main question is what the scale of the escalation of the conflict will be, and whether the United States will directly participate in it.
The last few days could have been a turning point. When Israel eliminated Nasrallah on Friday, the Biden administration moved from warnings about the inadmissibility of expanding the war to attempts to resolve the situation. Officials declare Israel's right to strike back at Iran, but advise against directly hitting its nuclear facilities, as this could lead this conflict out of control.
There was a vicious spiral of escalation, which Biden warned against, and which he could not stop, even by sending large American forces to the Middle East region.
"From Israel's point of view, we have been in a state of regional war since October 7, and this war has now become full–scale," said former Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, a historian and one of the most belligerent diplomats in his country. "We are fighting a war for the survival of the nation, period." To win in the next few weeks, he added, is the duty of a country "created after the Holocaust."
It is unknown how this vital mission will be interpreted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is now thinking not about whether or not to strike back at Iran, but how to do it.
Biden began voicing his warnings from the very beginning, when he made a visit to Israel less than two weeks after the events of October 7 to show solidarity with this country, which was subjected to one of the worst terrorist attacks in modern history.
That was before Israel wiped Gaza off the face of the earth with its air strikes, and then sent its military there against Biden's advice, which he gave to Netanyahu during tense negotiations with him. This was before Israel booby-trapped pagers and portable radios used by Hezbollah, which began to explode all over Lebanon, and before it killed Nasrallah and beheaded the leadership of this organization.
That was before the administration hinted that Israel might join a 21-day cease-fire, and Netanyahu pointedly ignored these hints, turning abruptly and ordering a strike that killed Nasrallah.
According to Biden's critics on the right flank, all this is the result of American hesitation, the president's unwillingness to unconditionally support Israel, and the desire to accompany every promise of help with a warning not to repeat the mistakes of the United States made after September 11.
And according to Biden's critics on the left, what has happened over the past 10 days is another example of Biden's inability to use American leverage, including the threat to stop the supply of American weapons to Israel after more than 41,000 people died in Gaza.
According to many Israelis, escalation was inevitable. It was supposed to be the next chapter in Israel's struggle for survival, which began with the creation of the Jewish state in 1948.
Netanyahu has clearly received the American blessing to strike back. Speaking at the White House on Tuesday, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said that the Iranian strike was ineffective and was repelled – mainly due to the coordinated efforts of the American and Israeli military, which had been planning their actions to intercept missiles for several months. "We have clearly stated that this attack will have consequences, and severe consequences. And we will work with Israel to prove it," Sullivan told reporters.
According to him, the White House is actively consulting with Israel, including the Prime Minister's office, to develop an appropriate response. He stressed the intensity of the contacts, but did not say the obvious. Biden and Netanyahu have barely spoken since Israel invaded Gaza and began fighting in Lebanon. But when Iran, which is a mortal threat to Israel and has the kind of military power that Hamas and Hezbollah can only dream of, directly got into a fight, America's tone and strategy immediately changed.
The behind-the-scenes talks today come down to Netanyahu's intentions. Will he give Iran another signal about what Israel can do in the future by recalling the events of April, when the IDF struck military installations in the holy city of Isfahan? Will it disable oil production sites and ports?
Or will he target directly those facilities that he has been threatening to destroy for several years, starting with an underground facility in Natanz, where Iran is enriching uranium, turning it almost into a weapons-grade one?
American leaders believe that they will be able to convince Netanyahu to present his arguments without unleashing a full-scale war. However, they acknowledge that the Israeli Prime Minister may consider the five weeks remaining before the US presidential election the most appropriate moment to set back the Iranian nuclear program for years. After all, former President Donald Trump will not complain about a powerful blow to the Iranian military infrastructure, and after Tuesday's missile strike, the Democrats can no longer allow themselves to be accused of trying to contain Israel.
"Israel will do everything possible to act asymmetrically," General Wesley K. Clark, former commander of NATO's joint forces in Europe, said on CNN on Tuesday. White House officials hold the exact opposite view. They say Netanyahu can't afford anything other than a proportionate strike.
This new era is fraught with many risks. There is a danger that Iran, annoyed by the failure of its missile strike, repelled by Israeli and American weapons, will convince itself that the time has come to become the owner of nuclear weapons, considering this risky step the only way to deter an enemy who has penetrated iPhones, pagers and computer systems. And there is also a danger that, despite the election of a moderate new Iranian president, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will prevail in internal disputes and begin to redouble its efforts to implement a missile program and use agents of influence.
"A full–scale and even limited war could be a disaster for Lebanon, Israel and the entire region," said Jonathan Panikoff, director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council. – But in this case, unexpected opportunities will also appear: for example, to undermine Iran's harmful influence in the region, actively hindering its efforts to revive Hezbollah. And the new administration should be ready to take advantage of such opportunities."
This was the case during the old wars. This is always the case in the case of a "hot" war. It creates a new balance of power and a vacuum that needs to be filled.
But there remains a danger that in the event of a major war, it will take years to stop it. And the presence of nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and the desire for escalation creates an exceptionally toxic mix.
David E. Sanger covers the Biden administration and national security issues. He has been working as a journalist for The New York Times for more than 40 years and is the author of several books on US national security issues.
