Will Iran now back down and return to the shadows?

The air-launched missile strike back by Israel agaist an Iranian military base has potentially opened up the possibility of direct and prolonged confict between the two countries, something which has been lurking in the background for decades. Unwilling to test Israel too far, Iran has until now relied on its many proxy militia forces in other countries to carry out strikes against Israel, what is universally known as the shadow war between the two countries. By the way, that shadow war HAS included direct attacks by Israel on Iran, but always involving secret undercover missions by Mossad, Israel's spy agency, carrying out assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, for example. But now it has changed. Now the red lines have been crossed and the dangers have risen by a dramatic amount. Will either side back down? Iran has already warned it could leap ahead with its nuclear programme and threaten Israel so the government of Binyamin Netanyahu is never going to back down. The future of Israel itself would be at stake. So it has to be Iran. Somehow the Tehran regime has to stop this war from expanding and already the signs are encouraging. Statements put out officially have denied Israel has caused any damage, playing down the retaliatory strike. But we will have to see how long that lasts. Once the battle damage has been fully assessed, then we will know whether Iran is going to continue with this dangerous tit-for-tat strikes. Meanwhile, what is happening and what is going to happen in Gaza? When will this war end? And will the attacks between Israel and Iran influence what happens in Gaza? The omens look truly bleak.

Is Ukraine heading for defeat?

The rhetoric is getting wilder and wilder. Ukraine's prime minister is warning that Russia will win the war unless the US provides the weapons Kyiv desperately needs, and that defeat for Ukraine would lead to the Third World War. Wow! I know it was intended as a wake-up call to Congress to pass the necessary legislation to get the $60 billion in military aid, but if it all goes wrong and the current legislative impasse continues into the summe, is the future for Ukraine and for the whole world as bleak as the Ukrainian prime minister is warning? My personal view is that although Vladimir Putin is pretty bad he is not Hitler. If he starts to invade the whole of Europe as some people are predicting, what would China do, for example? It would definitely not be in China's interest for there to be a European war, Third World War scale or otherwise. Beijing may have a strategic partnership with Moscow but would President Xi Zinping really want calamity in Europe? I don't believe it. So Beijing would be a constraining influence, one would hope. Also, however boosted Putin might be by a victory over Ukraine, he cannot want a major war with the whole of Nato. So, please, less talk of a Third World War.

So Israel WILL respond, and then what?

When a political leader makes a decision, it is to be hoped that at least one of his/her advisers will ask the one crucial question: what will be the consequences? Thus, Binyamin Netanyahu and his alarming war cabinet came out of their meeting yesterday with the decision that Iran will be punished for daring to attack Israel with missiles and drones. Punished with a military strike. Whether on Iranian territory or on a target linked to one of Tehran's many proxy militia forces, no one was saying. But whatever Netanyahu has in mind there will be consequences because then Tehran will have to decide how to respond and so on and so on. When does tit-for-tat end? Who blinks first? It's clearly not going to be Israel. But this is where that vital question has to be examined again and again. What are the likely worst-case-scenario repercussions if Israel and Iran continue to bash each other? Attempting to put myself into Netanyahu's mind, the Israeli leader will want to carry out a retaliatory strike which not only matches the thunderous barrage from Iran on Sunday but also sends the clearest warning to the ayatollahs that at the end of the day Israel can and will launch a full-scale attack on Iran if required. So, for these reasons, I suspect Netanyahu's choice is to select a target in Iran itself, a very significant target, and destroy it, just like he did in Damascus on the Iranian consulate building. My prediction would be a strike on an Iranian ballistic-missile base which would be seen by the Israeli war cabinet, if not in Washington, as an appropriate and proportionate strike - targeting the missile units that launched the attack on Israel. But how would Tehran respond to such an attack? Could they do nothing and just take the punishment? I seriously doubt it which is why that question about consequences has to be asked again and again and again.

Wars are won by air defence

Ukraine discovered a long time ago that if it was going to defeat or at least keep at bay Russia's invading forces, they needed air defence, air defence, air defence. With drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles filling the skies, Kyiv's survival was going to depend on having the most advanced air defence systems to shoot them down. The US sent them Patriot missile batteries, though not enough. Kyiv must be very irritated that as soon as Israel needs air defence help to counter the barrage of missiles and drones from Iran, they get fantastic support not just from the US but from European countries and key Arab nations including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Iraq. Which is why 99 per cent of the 300 Iranian drones and missiles were shot down. But, of course, the US and Europe can't physically help Ukraine destroy Russian air attacks, as they did for Israel. The Ukrainians have to do that themselves because none of Kyiv's allies in the West have dared or wanted to intervene in case it led to a full-scale war between Nato and Russia. Whereas the world and his wife have been able to go to Israel's aid because, hopefully, that is not going to lead to a bigger war. But the lesson from the Israel/Iran confrontation is obvious. Ukraine must be given a huge amount of extra air defence systems to knock out every missile and drone fired by the Russians. Right now, a helluva lot are getting through and destroying Ukraine's energy infrastructure. It's a disaster for the Ukrainians. Congress should get off its hands and approve the $60 billion aid package for Kyiv and start delivering more and more Patriots to confound that man in the Kremlin and ruin his ambition to bring Ukraine to its knees.

Iran must have known its attack mission on Israel would fail

Iran fired around 300 drones and missiles at Israel and pretty well failed to make any impact whatsoever. The drones, travelling at no more than 100mph, took several hours to reach their intended target which meant Israel, the US, the Brits and French and others in the maritime coalition in the Red Sea and Eastern Mediterranean had plenty of time to get their weapons ready to shoot them all down. Israel, with its heavyweight supporters both at sea and in the air, shot down 99 per cent of the barrage of missiles and drones. Pretty spectacular air defence capabilities. But Iran knew that. Just by witnessing what Israel and its backers have achieved in the last five months, shooting down nearly every missile fired by the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Tehran absolutely knew there was a very good chance every weapon they fired against Israel would be stopped. So why did they do it? Why launch drones and missiles against their hated enemy if they expected to fail abysmally. Well, first of all, it was the first time Iran had directly attacked Israel from Iranian territory. So, symbolically, a really big deal. Iran was telling Binyamin Netanyahu it wasn't afraid to attack Israel and that at some point in the future, there might be further attacks and much more serious ones. But also, even when a mission fails, you learn lessons. Iran has learnt that it cannot overwhelm Israel's defences, especially with US backing, with just 300 weapons. Israel knows this, too, of course, and will fully understand what Tehran was trying to do. It was testing the wind for future reference. My fear is that it is for this very reason that Israel will want to respond to Iran's attack - directly on Iranian soil - to see how the Iranian defences work. Israel will feel it now has justification for testing Iran's defences.

Should Israel retaliate or let sleeping dogs lie?

Everyone except John Bolton, former US national security adviser (under Trump), wants the Israel/Iran thing to come to an end now. So, Israel destroyed the Iranian consulate building in Damascus, killing seven people, and Iran responded with 300 missiles and drones against Israel - no one killed, very little damage. That should be it. We've had one-for-one, tit-for-tat, so call off the revenge addiction and get on with life. But Bolton says differently. He says Israel has no choice but to deliver a mighty blow to Iran for daring to fire missiles and drones at Israeli territory. Otherwise, he says, Iran and other adversaries will think they can get away with launching direct attacks on Israel. Strictly speaking, Bolton is right. In the big arena, backing down is seen as a sign of weakness. Israel said it would retaliate if Iran attacked. But in this dangerous world, the last thing we need is a non-stop direct military confrontation between Israel and Iran and all that that implies. Some very stupid people are already warning of a Third World War. Give us a break, we need diplomacy not more war. China has called for calm, and that's exactly what we need right now. A bit of calmness and grown-upness is required. We've had an eye-for-an-eye outbreak of violence. Now go back to your corners and lick your wounds. But no more escalation.

Joe Biden's new deterrent policy - don't do it.

When the US president says to a potential adversary about to lanch an attack - "don't" - I guess a lot depends on the implied threat in the word "don't". If it just means, "plese don't because it will cause a lot of trouble for everyone", then the adversary might think, "let's do it anyway, sod it." But if the word "don't" actually means, "if you do, we, the United States, are going to make you pay for it in a way that will make you regret you got out of bed", even the most vociferous adversary mgbht think twice and call the whole thing off. Donald Trump when president once warned Kim Jong-un that if he ever attacked the US he would order the annihilation of North Korea. I'm not saying Joe Biden should have told Tehran that if it launched an attack on Israel he would personally order a strike on Iran's nuclear weapons programme facilities. It's just that the word "don't" didn't cut it for me and probably didn't cut it for the ayatollahs. I think they will go ahead with an attack on Israel of some sort and will risk upsetting Biden. If that happens, the only conclusion one can come to is that the Biden "don't" warning had no impact. And that's not good. A "don't" plea has to have a helluva lot of heavy metal behind it.