Against – Gideon Mitchenik

Actually, non-response might be the right strategy

Under different circumstances, I might have joined those demanding an immediate response here and now. I would support an immediate response primarily for the sake of strengthening Israel’s regional deterrence, which suffered a significant blow on October 7th last year and still requires restoration. However, on this pivotal day for Israel and its leadership, the day after Iran’s direct and unprecedented attack on Israel, it seems that immediate “justified” response actions could be a historical mistake, especially given Iran’s failed attack, Israel’s impressive defense and deterrence capabilities, together with the United States and other allies.

The dilemma of whether to respond or not is a complex and multifaceted matter, and despite generally being an advocate of the ‘Iron Wall’ approach, it seems that in this case, it’s better to be ‘smart than right’.

Among the reasons why non-response might be the right strategy this time:

U.S. and International Arena: Iran’s move led to a clear U.S. alignment with Israel and broad international support. The impressive support for Israel from Biden and the American administration, along with the sharp responses and warnings from the U.S. and other countries to Iran, have dramatically improved Israel’s position in the international arena amid recent setbacks. Some of these factors may result in diplomatic and economic actions against Iran. On the other hand, an Israeli direct response may harm both U.S. and world support for Israel.

Fear of Escalation and Regional Slide: Direct military response by Israel could lead to a dangerous escalation, dragging it into wider regional confrontation with Iran and its allies. Such a confrontation is always dangerous, but in this timing, it doesn’t serve Israel’s interests.

Uncertainty: It’s still unclear what Iran’s objectives were in the attack and whether it was part of a larger plan. It may have been a show of force and a move primarily designed to test Israel’s capabilities and response. Hezbollah’s non-participation in the move simultaneously reinforces this possibility. If the former scenario is correct, an Israeli direct and immediate response could provoke an even harsher Iranian response and lead to a full-scale military confrontation.

Strengthening Israeli Deterrence: Indirect military response is not necessarily a sign of weakness. Given the tight relations with the U.S. and other countries, it could be interpreted as a display of resilience and strength, reinforcing Israel’s deterrence against Iran and other hostile actors.

Alongside all these considerations, an indirect military response might be the right strategy in this case.

In Favor – Yoram Ettinger

Israel should engage in preventive war against Iran

Israel would do well to learn the lessons from past events, which suggest that it’s preferable to prioritize long-term security interests over short-term political convenience of complying with U.S. preferences and avoiding confrontation with Washington.

For example, the preference to comply with American demands over the past 17 years failed to deter Hamas and led to the disaster we experienced on October 7th and the ongoing costly war. This is in contrast to Israel’s independent decision to destroy the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, despite American pressure. Indeed, Israel paid a price for defying the U.S., including delays in the supply of American fighter jets and a series of agreements for cooperation. However, there is no doubt that this move was correct, not only for Israel but also for many other countries, which were freed from the threat of Iraqi nuclear aggression, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, and Kuwait. Furthermore, Israel’s correct decision also helped the U.S. itself, by sparing it from dealing with the threat of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons a decade later, when the U.S. was in direct confrontation with him during the First Gulf War.

In fact, Israel has consistently made independent decisions, contrary to U.S. opinion: from the annexation of West Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and significant parts of the Sharon and Negev regions in 1948, through the preventive war in 1967 and the subsequent unification of Jerusalem and the beginning of Jewish settlement beyond the ‘Green Line’, and of course the decision to enact Israeli law over the Golan Heights in 1981 – all of these were fateful decisions for Israel, made despite heavy pressure from the U.S.

The main lesson Israel needs to learn from October 7th is that a pinpoint attack is not a solution to an existential threat to Israel. Therefore, Israel should initiate a preventive war against Iran, which does not hide its intention to destroy the ‘Zionist entity’. Even the American intelligence services know this and warn about it. While the U.S. operates according to an alternative reality, which assumes that the Ayatollah regime may detach itself from its fanatical vision and agree to coexist in peace, it continues with a diplomatic path and therefore does not engage in confrontation now. But for us, it is an existential threat whose potential price is higher than the price we may pay in the course of the necessary preventive war.