 |
| The president expressing anger at Israel this morning (People) |
Suddenly and unexpectedly the president announced that he brokered a cease fire deal between Israel and Iran to which they both agreed.
And then, just as suddenly, the President has become very upset with Israel. The truce was immediately broken by Iran, which fired a missile into Haifa. Fortunately, it was intercepted. While Iran likely did violate the ceasefire with that missile attack, no one was killed or injured, and no damage occurred.
Should Israel overlook that breach? If this were merely a matter of ignoring an attack with no consequences for the sake of peace, I’d say yes. But it's not that simple.
After the ceasefire was announced yesterday and set to begin at
midnight local time, Israel continued pounding Iranian targets right up to the
final moments. Eliminating as much of their military infrastructure and
leadership as possible. Viewed in isolation, this should be applauded.
But Iran did the same. Moments before the ceasefire
deadline, they struck a residential building in Be’er Sheva, killing four (or possibly 5) Jews.
Technically, that did not violate the ceasefire, since it occurred just before
it took effect. However, the missile fired at Haifa afterward did breach the
agreement.
My sense is that Israel is using the post-ceasefire attack
(which was technically a violation) as a justification to retaliate for the
earlier, more devastating one. Which wasn’t.
President Trump is unhappy with all of this. He blames
Israel for carrying out its deadliest strike of the war after the ceasefire had
been announced even though it was not yet in effect. In his view, both parties should have begun winding down their
operations after agreeing to the truce. Not accelerating them, even if the
ceasefire technically hadn’t started yet. He believes Iran’s massive
retaliatory strike just before the deadline was a response to Israel’s
last-minute aggression.
As for the missile fired at Haifa after the ceasefire began, my best guess is that with their chain of command decimated it was launched independently by a local Iranian military base unaware of the agreement or its timing. Iran has denied any violation altogether.
Understandably, the president is concerned that the ceasefire may collapse before it’s even fully in effect. Though he blames both sides, he places more of the blame on Israel.
Trump seeks peace, plain and simple. He is not a warmonger and never intended to enter a war with Iran or any other country. His strike on Fordow was a ‘one-off’ with the clear condition that if Iran retaliated they would suffer severe military consequences. Iran did attack but not in any serious way. In fact, they informed the U.S. when and where they planned to retaliate, ensuring that no American personnel would be harmed. This likely stemmed from their clear understanding that Trump would follow through on his promises if provoked. Their response was deliberately weak but enough to save face domestically and yet avoid real consequences.
The president even thanked Iran for the advance warning,
which allowed the U.S. to evacuate troops and avoid casualties. He then
brokered the ceasefire, which both sides agreed to.
Now, however, he is increasingly upset with Israel’s
continued military actions. He called the prime minister, expressed his anger, and urged him to stand down, bring his pilots
home, and honor the ceasefire from this point forward.
I understand why Israel is upset. The people killed in
Be’er Sheva last night were the first Israeli casualties from Iranian missiles
in days. Twenty-four were killed in the early days of the war, and that number
had remained steady until last night.
So, should Israel retaliate - as it clearly wants to - or heed
the president’s call for restraint?
My first instinct is that they should not retaliate at this time.
Israel and the U.S. have already severely weakened Iran. The opportunity for
regime change is greater now than it has ever been. Whether that will happen remains to be seen. But their mission to roll
back Iran’s nuclear ambitions by years has already succeeded.
If it later turns out that Iran's nuclear infrastructure wasn’t fully eliminated, Israel and the U.S. can always strike again with greater ease and precision. That information should be easily obtained since Iran has been thoroughly infiltrated.
If peace is truly within reach, I side with the president.
On the other hand, Iran cannot be trusted. They’ve repeatedly shown that their
political ambitions have not changed. They may talk peace while rebuilding
their military and nuclear programs. Possibly learning how to hide them even
better this time.
We don’t know if they’re capable of doing that. But it’s far
better not to find out the hard way. Retaliation might ultimately be the best
strategy if it could end the regime once and for all.
What about the president’s objections? If Israel’s actions
could accomplish that goal, all would likely be forgiven. But that’s a big if.
At the end of the day, I’m not certain what the right course of action is. But I’m leaning toward restraint. With the clear condition that both the U.S. and Israel remain highly vigilant. If Iran resumes any nefarious activity, they should not hesitate to act decisively if and when that is determined
I can’t presume to be in the prime minister’s shoes. And I
will NOT second guess his decisions. I am not privy to his military intelligence
data nor the security requirements of his country. So I am clearly in no position
to offer advice on matters of such a consequential nature.
However, given what I DO know (based on the above considerations) if war - and the death and destruction that goes along with it – can be prevented without compromising Israel’s security, seeking peace should be the first course of action. And after the prime minster's conversation with the president this morning, I think that is what he is going to do.
