Israel-Iran: Neither appeasement nor deterrence

At the time of writing, there has yet to be an official statement from the Israeli government confirming that it was behind the drone attack around the Iranian city of Isfahan, as well as in Iraq and southern Syria. That said, no one doubts who it was or why this attack was executed: in response to the massive missile and drone attack committed by Iran against Israel last Saturday.

From what is known, Israel's response has been very limited, both in the quantity of weapons used, as well as with its target selection and overall damage sought. Without disregarding the scope of the impacts, still to be determined at this time, everything indicates that what is truly important is the message that Jerusalem wanted to convey to Iran on the 85th birthday of its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who was ultimately responsible for the attack against Israel on April 13.

Israel's argument for responding to Iran has been the need to restore deterrence against future attacks. Honestly, I am not at all convinced that, with such a reduced response, this is even possible to establish, as it tends to fail in the Middle East. At best, it is something fluid and constantly changing, and usually worse. But it is no less true that not having done anything after the Iranian missile attack would have generated a perception of Israeli weakness throughout the region.

In reality it was not harm that the leaders in Jerusalem have sought, rather a clear message. But what was it? I believe that, without a doubt, it is that Israel has the means to penetrate Iran's defenses, to reach the heart of that country and destroy the objectives that are considered appropriate. In this case, it was an Iranian air base. It was a powerful message, one stating: “You are vulnerable.”

Israel has the means to penetrate Iran's defenses, to reach the heart of that country and destroy the objectives that are considered appropriate. In this case, it was an Iranian air base. It was a powerful message, one stating: “You are vulnerable.”

An additional message might be, “Given that we have not attacked vital facilities or those related to the nuclear program, although we could have done so, it is a sign that we do not want an escalation that will inevitably lead us to an open and direct war.” Or, if you prefer this said another way, Israel's response would be proportional to any action by Iran.

In short, it is obvious that both Iran and Israel are capable of doing themselves a lot of harm. Does it change the strategic game in the region? Everything will depend on the lessons that the Iranian leaders draw. Israel has attacked despite everyone asking for restraint, so one cannot rule out new, more forceful military action in the future, even if it goes against the wishes of the entire international community, if Israel feels that its existence is in question.

But if one accepts that Iran only believes it will be safe from any retaliation for its destabilizing actions in the region by providing itself with an atomic umbrella, it is highly probable that it will now try to accelerate the advancement of its nuclear program to manufacture as many atomic weapons as possible.

Hence, now more than ever, it is important for the international community to impose tougher and more effective sanctions to prevent Iran's progress towards such a bomb. It is not going to be easy given Iran's growing relationship with Russia and China's need for Iranian oil. But the Western world has a golden opportunity simply by emphasizing Iran's military engagement with Russia in the invasion of Ukraine. Europe should start putting Moscow and Tehran in the same bag instead of betting on maintaining trade and financial relations that only help Iran become an atomic power.

The Arab world in general has understood this; above all, the gulf countries. It is time to get in the correct starting position, the time the world dedicates itself to preventing Iran from making the bomb.