Unlock the US Election Countdown newsletter for free
The stories that matter on money and politics in the race for the White House
The US and its western allies are trying to limit Israel’s response to Iran’s ballistic missile attack in hopes of preventing a widening regional conflict from spiralling out of control.
Washington has made clear it supports Israel’s right to respond militarily to Tuesday’s missile attack, and is holding frequent calls with Israeli officials as they plan their next move.
US President Joe Biden on Wednesday spoke with the other leaders of the G7 to co-ordinate sanctions on Tehran for the attack and advise Israel on its response.
“We’ll be discussing with the Israelis what they’re going to do . . . all seven of us agree that they have a right to respond, but they should respond in proportion,” Biden told reporters after the call.
But US officials acknowledge their influence on Israel may be limited.
Israel is weighing several response options to retaliate against Iran, including attacks on missile launchers or oil infrastructure. Some officials have called for strikes against its nuclear facilities, though a person familiar with the matter said this is not being considered. Biden has also said he would oppose such an attack.
The US and other western allies are instead urging Israel to focus on military targets, said people familiar with the matter.
Kurt Campbell, the deputy US secretary of state, on Wednesday said Washington recognised a “response of some kind would be important” and there had to be a “return message” to Iran.
But he added: “The region is really balancing on a knife’s edge and [there are] real concerns about an even broader escalation, or a continuing one . . . which would imperil not only Israel, but our strategic interests as well,” he said in a virtual event at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think-tank, on Wednesday.
However, western officials acknowledge Israel is increasingly self-confident and emboldened after its recent success in assassinating much of the leadership of Iran-backed Hizbollah — including its leader, Hassan Nasrallah.
The Israeli government may be prepared to take military and political losses if it means notching a strategic victory over Iran, they said.
US state department spokesperson Matt Miller on Wednesday said: “They’re a sovereign country, they do make their own decisions, we talk with them at a number of different levels about what we believe is in their interest, what we believe is in the interest of the region — we’ll continue to do that, but ultimately it’s up to them.”
Tuesday’s strikes, in response to the assassination of Nasrallah last week, were much larger than an earlier Iranian attack in April, incorporating about twice as many ballistic missiles — although only a few got through Israel’s air defences.
US national security adviser Jake Sullivan warned Iran would face “severe consequences” for the strikes, which he described as “defeated and ineffective”, adding the US would “work with Israel to make that the case”.
But the green light to go ahead with a response does not mean a blank cheque, analysts said. The goal for the US and its allies is that Israel’s response does not in turn prompt further escalation by Iran.
Dana Stroul, the Biden administration’s former top Pentagon official on the Middle East who is now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said: “The administration continues to adhere to the line that they want to see de-escalation and prevent the kind of all-out regional war that could lead to massive collateral damage and civilian casualties across much more of the region than we have seen thus far.”
Jonathan Panikoff, a former senior intelligence official now at the Atlantic Council, said that while some in Israel are arguing for targeting Iranian oilfields, “US officials are probably concerned that an Israeli decision to target oilfields could result in Iran striking back by targeting oilfields of US companies and allies in the Gulf”.
Such an attack could also hit petrol prices ahead of next month’s US presidential election.
Panikoff added that direct targeting of Iranian nuclear sites would be viewed in Tehran as a significant threat that would demand a response.
“Tehran is likely to view a strike against its nuclear programme as a fundamental and direct attack on the regime’s stability itself, likely ensuring a response that moves all parties up the escalatory ladder,” he warned.
Read the full article here
