Will Netanyahu's strike on Iran be proportionate or punitive?

On 20 June 2019, President Donald Trump rescinded an order he had given for a military attack on Iran in retaliation for the shooting down of a long-range Global Hawk surveillance drone. He decided that a missile strike on Iranian military bases which might cause casualties would have been disproportionate. Global Hawk was unmanned. No American had died. The bombers, already en route, were summoned back to base. No one could suggest that Benjamin Netanyahu is facing the same decision. The circumstances are entirely different. There is no moral equivalence. On 1 October Iran launched nearly 200 ballistic missiles on Israel, and Netanyahu has vowed to respond with a significant retaliatory strike. However, there is one issue which does mirror the decision-making that went on in Trump’s mind late on Thursday June 20 five years ago: should a retaliatory tit-for-tat strike be proportionate or punitive? President Joe Biden, ever cautious and worried about the potential for a real war between Israel and Iran, has emphasised the need for proportion. The 180 ballistic missiles launched against Israel were mostly shot down by Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system and by US-led coalition warships in the region. Those that got through damaged the Nevatim airbase in the Negev desert in southern Israel but without destroying any of the F-35 fighter jets parked there, caused minor damage at other bases and fell relatively harmlessly near Mossad’s headquarters north of Tel Aviv. A Palestinian man was killed when he was hit by missile fragments in the West Bank city of Jericho, and there were minor injuries from falling debris elsewhere. The battle damage assessment, as the military like to call it, concluded that the Iranian attack had largely failed.: 180 ballistic missiles, one fatality. However, judging by the Israeli preparations for a retaliatory strike, leaked from a classified report produced by the US National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Netanyahu and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, have decided that a punitive, not a proportionate response, is required. The leaked documents, based on US satellite images of Israeli forces rehearsing an attack, indicated the thrust of the proposed retaliatory strike will involve air-launched long-range ballistic missiles identified as Rocks ALBMs and “Golden Horizon” weapons, believed to be from Israel’s Sparrow series of missiles with a range of 1,240 miles. When asked by reporters whether he knew what Israel planned to attack and when, Biden replied “yes and yes”. But he wisely divulged nothing further, other than to underline his hope that a ceasefire in Lebanon and possibly in Gaza might be on the cards following the killing by Israeli troops of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar on 16 October. Biden dispatched Antony Blinken, his secretary of state, to Israel and the Middle East region to devote yet more time and energy on trying to broker a ceasefire in what has become a spiralling conflict. Will Blinken, who arrived in Israel today (Tues), also try to persuade Netanyahu to limit what is viewed even in Washington as Tel Aviv’s necessary and justified determination to respond to Iran’s ballistic-missile strike of 1 October? It’s probably too late to beg Netanyahu to go easy. He has made it clear that this time round – in contrast to the last retaliation for an Iranian missile attack in April - Israel has to be more heavy-handed. Even though the 1 October missile launch killed only one individual, the clear aim of the Tehran regime was to cause serious damage. A proportionate response would look like failure in Netanyahu’s mind. The unknown question is how Iran will respond if Israeli Air Force bombers succeed in destroying or severely damaging key military sites . In other words, achieving far more destruction than Iran managed with its 180 ballistic missiles. The Israel Defence Forces claimed the missiles caused minor damage to maintenance and administration buildings at several airbases and did not harm critical infrastructure. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has warned that any attack by Israel, particularly if it targeted the country’s nuclear facilities, would be met with like-for-like strikes. He said in an interview with Turkey’s NTV network last Friday that specific military targets in Israel had been pinpointed. Israel has so far waited three weeks without retaliating. In the meantime, Yahya Sinwar has been killed, raising tentative hopes of a slowing-down of the war in Gaza, Hezbollah has launched drones against Netanyahu’s holiday residence in the Mediterranean coastal town of Caesarea in northern Israel and the US presidential election is just two weeks away. The political and strategic landscape has thus changed. But will it make any difference to whether Netanyahu and his cabinet go for a full-scale punitive strike on Iran or a more limited but precise attack which would highlight the country’s vulnerability and maybe force Tehran to think twice about another tit-for-tat bombing? In his current mood, Netanyahu seems intent on striking a mighty blow on Iran. The consequences could scupper ceasefire hopes and have an impact on the way Americans vote on November 5.