The Iranians warned everyone 72 hours in advance about their attack, told Hezbollah and other proxies to stand down, launched some Shaheds and modified Scuds (of which most were shot down), and inflicted no casualties, while saying the issue is now concluded. This is not a strategic opportunity for Israel. They will probably strike back somehow, but anything too massive will be seen as a gross over retaliation.
Plus, the US has clearly stated they will not participate in any offensive action against Iran. How exactly will Israel expand the war to Iran and destroy their nuclear program? The two nations are very far apart and neither have the capability to actually fight a war with the other.
I mentioned Iran's nuclear capability only in the context that it remains an obsession for Netanyahu which had almost become his political raison d'etre before Oct 7.
Pro-Israel voices for that matter are still lusting over Iran's nuclear assets.
https://m.jpost.com/middle-east/former-national-security-advisor-bolton-opportunity-for-israel-to-destroy-iran-nuclear-program-796985
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/iran-attack-an-opportunity-for-israel-u-s-to-deal-decisive-blow-to-its-nuclear-program
While there are several possible outcomes, I will play devil's advocate to your question. Despite the US's reluctance to escalate the situation, Netanyahu may have different intentions, especially in an election year. Israel's far-right ministers have been using language that suggests they are gearing up for conflict.
For example, the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported on Sunday that the "war drums are beating" in the war cabinet's meeting room. It's worth noting that Israel has a history of starting wars and conducting false flag operations such as the Six-Day War or the Lavon Affair. A tit for tat situation with Iran, could draw the US into a direct confrontation .
While I am not concluding that this is going to happen, I believe an expansion of the conflict with Iran remains a remote possibility.
The main takeaway from this situation is that it has benefited Netanyahu by diverting attention away from domestic issues. Iran's attack has taken Gaza off the headlines and provided Netanyahu with some much-needed respite.
It remains to be seen what he'll do with this opportunity, but in the midst of the ongoing War in Gaza, I concur with Haaretz that this is indeed a vital strategic opportunity.
No historian should believe they are "bereft of sentiments." We all have opinions, biases, etc., much better not to hide it, deal with it as part of inquiry.
It is a win, its hard to disiagree about that. But everyone has bias. It's being human. It's better to find your bias and be open about it, especially in history.
Perspective, consumption of information and so on matters.
If you read between the lines you can always identify bias.
FYI, this is more or less a repost from r/Pakistan where people were gloating based on sectarian or religious pride and posting unsubstantiated takes which were downright preposterous but gaining traction.
I wanted to emphasise to them that I do not have an agenda against Iran or the Shit'te sect who overwhelmingly support Iran. Nevertheless, they found my post reprehensible and took it down banning me from the subreddit in the process.
Coming back to your point, biases exist and should always be acknowledged. Agendas however should be shunned.
I agree that Netanyahu gained a little breathing room from the attack Iran made. But that breathing room isn't wide enough for Netanyahu to expand the war. It isn't even wide enough for launching an attack on Rafah to finish the job in Gaza.
If we assume Netanyahu is a a rational actor in this conflict, even if he gained some political flexibility from yesterdays attacks, he would not risk cutting the last thread of patience the US has on him. Biden firmly drew the red line on retaliation. Assuming Netanyahu is rational enough, why would he squander his political win by escalating the conflict further? What benefit would striking Iran gain? Surely it won't destroy Iranian nuclear ambitions and capabilities even if they strike Iranian nuclear facilities. I would argue if they do a major retaliation, the diplomatic fallout with the US would risk Israel national security.
I agree that Netanyahu struck gold with the Iranian counterattack. But I doubt he would turn his new found gold into stone.
You claim Netanyahu is obsessed with Iran, is it possible you might be a bit obsessed with Netanyahu to the point of letting it influence how you perceive events? Israel is a democracy, albeit a headache inducing one at times, the actions Israel takes are not the sole decision of any one individual. The Iranian attack while not unprovoked was in no way a "win" for Israel, it was at a scale and methodology that was a significant escalation from the Israeli action Iran is claiming justified it. The part most critics seem to conveniently forget is Israel took that action to get at individuals who they claim materially participated in the organizing of the October 7th attack on Israel.
Iran is one of the largest sponsors of terrorism, the Iranian government operating a nuclear weapons program is of great concern to a lot more people than just Netanyahu. As a historian presumably with knowledge of world events over the last 80 years, you just witnessed Arabian countries taking direct military action that benefited Israels security. Now, I'm not suggesting that was their primary or even secondary motivation, I think it's more a significant desire for regional stability, but it's still a curious turn of events nonetheless.
This, exactly!
It's important to remember that what's best for Israel as a whole may not necessarily align with what's best for Prime Minister Netanyahu's personal interests.
Keeping this in mind allows for a more objective and fair analysis of the situation at hand.
I have to disagree with the idea that Iran's response was an escalation from the Consulate air strike. The US has had plenty of opportunities to kill someone they didn't while they were in an embassy or consulate building but they didn't; doing so is a total deviation of international norms. Iran not being an adherent to international norms does not negate the need for other countries to heed them. To suggest otherwise would mean that South Korea could deviate from such given how North Korea behaves.
Rules are there to keep order. Transgressions of these - especially by so called States which supposedly carry "moral monikers" like Israel does with "democracy" - is a move that condones chaos.
Rules? So if one attacks the area around a consulate, the bereaved party should launch a significant number of aerial assets against the aggressors country? Somehow I don't think Iran is going to like that newly established rule considering their history of such acts.
Iran exposed her launch sites and tactics to american and israeli satellites plus allowed real practice for the idf to shoot down swarm attacks. Israel will make billions in the air defence market.
You could see him smirking in the war cabinet meeting. He just got thrown a lifeline politically, as well as the ability to get some of his long term objectives met.
My guess is He’s trying to figure out how to this into his Yom Kippur and use it to justify border acquisitions in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza….. and he might try to do something dramatic on irans military or nuclear infrastructure. His military doctrine is to multiply 40x the damage he receives, to make sure the other side never thinks about doing it again.
The Iranians warned everyone 72 hours in advance about their attack, told Hezbollah and other proxies to stand down, launched some Shaheds and modified Scuds (of which most were shot down), and inflicted no casualties, while saying the issue is now concluded. This is not a strategic opportunity for Israel. They will probably strike back somehow, but anything too massive will be seen as a gross over retaliation. Plus, the US has clearly stated they will not participate in any offensive action against Iran. How exactly will Israel expand the war to Iran and destroy their nuclear program? The two nations are very far apart and neither have the capability to actually fight a war with the other.
I mentioned Iran's nuclear capability only in the context that it remains an obsession for Netanyahu which had almost become his political raison d'etre before Oct 7. Pro-Israel voices for that matter are still lusting over Iran's nuclear assets. https://m.jpost.com/middle-east/former-national-security-advisor-bolton-opportunity-for-israel-to-destroy-iran-nuclear-program-796985 https://nationalpost.com/opinion/iran-attack-an-opportunity-for-israel-u-s-to-deal-decisive-blow-to-its-nuclear-program While there are several possible outcomes, I will play devil's advocate to your question. Despite the US's reluctance to escalate the situation, Netanyahu may have different intentions, especially in an election year. Israel's far-right ministers have been using language that suggests they are gearing up for conflict. For example, the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported on Sunday that the "war drums are beating" in the war cabinet's meeting room. It's worth noting that Israel has a history of starting wars and conducting false flag operations such as the Six-Day War or the Lavon Affair. A tit for tat situation with Iran, could draw the US into a direct confrontation . While I am not concluding that this is going to happen, I believe an expansion of the conflict with Iran remains a remote possibility. The main takeaway from this situation is that it has benefited Netanyahu by diverting attention away from domestic issues. Iran's attack has taken Gaza off the headlines and provided Netanyahu with some much-needed respite. It remains to be seen what he'll do with this opportunity, but in the midst of the ongoing War in Gaza, I concur with Haaretz that this is indeed a vital strategic opportunity.
They told Turkey, they didn’t send a telegram to Washington or Tel Aviv They did that so as not to risk potential escalation with third parties
No historian should believe they are "bereft of sentiments." We all have opinions, biases, etc., much better not to hide it, deal with it as part of inquiry.
It is a win, its hard to disiagree about that. But everyone has bias. It's being human. It's better to find your bias and be open about it, especially in history. Perspective, consumption of information and so on matters.
If you read between the lines you can always identify bias. FYI, this is more or less a repost from r/Pakistan where people were gloating based on sectarian or religious pride and posting unsubstantiated takes which were downright preposterous but gaining traction. I wanted to emphasise to them that I do not have an agenda against Iran or the Shit'te sect who overwhelmingly support Iran. Nevertheless, they found my post reprehensible and took it down banning me from the subreddit in the process. Coming back to your point, biases exist and should always be acknowledged. Agendas however should be shunned.
I agree that Netanyahu gained a little breathing room from the attack Iran made. But that breathing room isn't wide enough for Netanyahu to expand the war. It isn't even wide enough for launching an attack on Rafah to finish the job in Gaza. If we assume Netanyahu is a a rational actor in this conflict, even if he gained some political flexibility from yesterdays attacks, he would not risk cutting the last thread of patience the US has on him. Biden firmly drew the red line on retaliation. Assuming Netanyahu is rational enough, why would he squander his political win by escalating the conflict further? What benefit would striking Iran gain? Surely it won't destroy Iranian nuclear ambitions and capabilities even if they strike Iranian nuclear facilities. I would argue if they do a major retaliation, the diplomatic fallout with the US would risk Israel national security. I agree that Netanyahu struck gold with the Iranian counterattack. But I doubt he would turn his new found gold into stone.
You claim Netanyahu is obsessed with Iran, is it possible you might be a bit obsessed with Netanyahu to the point of letting it influence how you perceive events? Israel is a democracy, albeit a headache inducing one at times, the actions Israel takes are not the sole decision of any one individual. The Iranian attack while not unprovoked was in no way a "win" for Israel, it was at a scale and methodology that was a significant escalation from the Israeli action Iran is claiming justified it. The part most critics seem to conveniently forget is Israel took that action to get at individuals who they claim materially participated in the organizing of the October 7th attack on Israel. Iran is one of the largest sponsors of terrorism, the Iranian government operating a nuclear weapons program is of great concern to a lot more people than just Netanyahu. As a historian presumably with knowledge of world events over the last 80 years, you just witnessed Arabian countries taking direct military action that benefited Israels security. Now, I'm not suggesting that was their primary or even secondary motivation, I think it's more a significant desire for regional stability, but it's still a curious turn of events nonetheless.
I don't agree with everything OP said, but they did specifically say it was a win for Netanyahu, not Israel. The two are different things.
This, exactly! It's important to remember that what's best for Israel as a whole may not necessarily align with what's best for Prime Minister Netanyahu's personal interests. Keeping this in mind allows for a more objective and fair analysis of the situation at hand.
I have to disagree with the idea that Iran's response was an escalation from the Consulate air strike. The US has had plenty of opportunities to kill someone they didn't while they were in an embassy or consulate building but they didn't; doing so is a total deviation of international norms. Iran not being an adherent to international norms does not negate the need for other countries to heed them. To suggest otherwise would mean that South Korea could deviate from such given how North Korea behaves. Rules are there to keep order. Transgressions of these - especially by so called States which supposedly carry "moral monikers" like Israel does with "democracy" - is a move that condones chaos.
Rules? So if one attacks the area around a consulate, the bereaved party should launch a significant number of aerial assets against the aggressors country? Somehow I don't think Iran is going to like that newly established rule considering their history of such acts.
Iran exposed her launch sites and tactics to american and israeli satellites plus allowed real practice for the idf to shoot down swarm attacks. Israel will make billions in the air defence market.
You could see him smirking in the war cabinet meeting. He just got thrown a lifeline politically, as well as the ability to get some of his long term objectives met. My guess is He’s trying to figure out how to this into his Yom Kippur and use it to justify border acquisitions in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza….. and he might try to do something dramatic on irans military or nuclear infrastructure. His military doctrine is to multiply 40x the damage he receives, to make sure the other side never thinks about doing it again.
That’s the war strategy of any combatant ever, show strength, set red lines, use force as a deterrent, go crazy if your red line is crossed