Iran seems to have the upper hand as options available for “Israel” are not good enough, according to Richard Haass.
-
An Israeli occupation forces troop on top of an armored personnel carrier (APC) in southern occupied Palestine, Monday, April 15, 2024 (AP)
A report on the Financial Times by a writer who is a senior counselor at Centerview Partners, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a former US diplomat discusses why “Israel” has no good choices regarding Iran.
The writer, Richard Haass, said that Iran’s retaliatory attack on “Israel” on April 14 is the first one carried out by Iran directly claiming that previously its war against the occupation was happening only in the shadows.
According to Haass, the big question is where “Israel” and the Middle East go from here as he believes that Iran wishes for things to go back to the way they were, which he claims is through an indirect war through “proxies.”
The US does not want escalation
On the other hand, Hass believes that the US wants the situation to “calm down” as an extended war in the Middle East is not in its interests knowing well that it is not out of Iran’s capabilities. One of those capabilities, he says, is shutting down the Straits of Hormuz in turn inducing an increase in oil prices which would put further pressure on US President Joe Bide, already grappling with inflation effects.
“Israel” was advised by the Biden administration to “take the win” after its air defense attempt on the night of the retaliatory strike which means that the question rests on whether “Israel” will actually take this advice or not, he said noting that it has taken the American advice regarding Hamas.
The options
Hass believes that the options available for “Israel” are to do nothing, go back to the status quo of waging an indirect war against Iran, initiate a limited strike against “military targets inside Iran” linked to the attack, or launch a large reprisal, which would include attacking Iranian nuclear sites.
He added that going for the first and second options has its advantages and it will give “Israel” more space to “focus on Gaza” and try to get back its captives simultaneously avoiding a wider war bearing deep economic, military, and human costs. This, according to Haass, will also please the Americans and dodge actions that would further “normalize homeland on-homeland attacks.”
However, this will come with a downside for the Israeli occupation which is the failure of imposing a price on Iran for its retaliatory attack, Haass added.
As he said some Israeli officials and settlers’ priority is to restore deterrence, the option of not doing anything will not be good enough for them and this further promotes the option of limited strikes against Iran.
But, Haass said, this option still carries some risks for the Israeli occupation as Iran will strike back and will also accelerate its nuclear program in what he claims is Tehran’s belief to prevent future Israeli attacks on its territories.
If “Israel” attacks known nuclear sites in Iran, it will not only resemble a further escalation and put the occupation on the defensive again but it will further push Iran to put twice the efforts towards building its nuclear program in a way immune to Israeli threats and that could possibly push, as Haass said, several countries in the region to pursue nuclear weapons.
Hands tied
According to Richard Haass, this leaves “Israel” in front of two “least bad and most likely” options which are to either continue its indirect war against Iran or to launch a limited strike on military targets inside it and this latter option will up the risks of new retaliatory attacks from Iran while restoring some deterrence.
Hass ended his report by emphasizing that no matter what “Israel” does next, with the exception of changing the regime in Tehran which is beyond its capabilities or the West’s, “there is no way to solve the strategic challenge” Iran poses. He added that at best, “the threat” could be managed but it is up to “Israel” to figure out how to do this best.
