Iran and Israel have crossed two previous red lines in less than seven days by launching direct attacks at each other for the first time, even after President Biden issued his infamous “don’t.” Somehow, this is being positioned as a victory for diplomacy.
Decades from now, assuming humanity survives that long, there is little doubt that President Biden’s foreign policy will be taught as a cautionary tale, a lesson in what not to do if one is interested in preserving world peace. Over the past two weeks, the world has reached yet another of those unfortunate firsts no one ever wants to reach as Iran and Israel proceeded into direct conflict for the first time, striking one another’s respective countries without the aid of proxies to at least provide a veneer that war between these two Middle Eastern enemies wasn’t really afoot. The increase in already simmering hostilities began when Israel struck Iranian assets in already war-torn Syria, killing several top commanders believed responsible for planning and aiding the October 7 slaughter that left over 1,200 Israelis dead. Although the attack occurred outside of Iran and there are no official diplomatic missions in Syria, Iran insisted it was an attack on their sovereign soil and vowed to retaliate in kind. This retaliation took the form of a massive drone, ballistic, and cruise missile strike, some 300 of these weapons with a large contingent launched directly from inside Iran’s borders. Fortunately, Israel along with the United States and other countries including Saudi Arabia was able to repel the attack using sophisticated missile defense technology, and there was only one reported injury, a seven year old girl. The Biden Administration immediately took the opportunity to claim the equivalent of blocking a fist headed for your face was a win. “You got a win. Take the win,” he told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the immediate aftermath while urging him not to retaliate. National Security Council Spokesman John Kirby claimed that repelling the attack was an “unprecedented success.” It showed an “unprecedented sense of resolve and determination and military capability” by the US., Israel, and other allies. “It should tell everybody else that Israel is not alone, that this was a coalition put together to help Israel defend itself,” he explained. “Iran is just increasingly further isolated in the region.” He pivoted from there to the default position that we do not seek a conflict with Iran, even as we are engaged in one that left three Americans dead earlier this year. “The president has been very clear, publicly so: We don’t seek a war with Iran,” he said. “We don’t seek escalated tensions in the region. We don’t seek a wider conflict. And everything he’s been doing, literally since the seventh of October, has been designed to that outcome.”
Not surprisingly, the majority of the mainstream media was more than willing to accept this position at face value, immediately downplaying the unprecedented nature of the attack. Politico opined, “Iran’s attack on Israel was dangerous, provocative — and seemingly all but designed to fail. None of the hundreds of projectiles launched at Israel hit a major target. So, what was the point?” In their view, “The latest crisis to erupt in the region left many longtime analysts wondering what Iran’s real intention was — whether the direct attack was mainly a face-saving exercise or a genuine effort to escalate — and whether the United States can still manage to prevent what it’s been trying to avoid for more than six months, a full-scale regional war.” Shortly after, reports began to emerge that Iran had informed the United States about the attack via Turkey. “Iran said the reaction would be a response to Israel’s attack on its embassy in Damascus and that it would not go beyond this. We were aware of the possibilities. The developments were not a surprise,” said a Turkish diplomatic source. According to Reuters, Washington conveyed that any action it took had to be “within certain limits,” providing tacit approval. The Biden Administration has since denied this, claiming it was “ridiculous,” but a close reading of the denial suggests they are intentionally mixing up two stories. One claims they were “notified” 72-hours before the attack began, which originated with the Iranians themselves and prompted a vigorous pushback, “That is absolutely not true,” an official said. “They did not give a notification, nor did they give any sense of … ‘these will be the targets, so evacuate them.’” Mr. Kirby issued a similar denial, saying “The story that originated with Turkish, sources, This whole narrative out there that Iran passed us a message with what they were gonna do is ridiculous…All I’m telling you is it’s nonsense. Can you imagine a world in which Iran would pick up the phone and say, ‘We’re about to try to shwack Israel with 300 cruise missiles and drones, we just wanted to let you know it’s coming and oh by the way, here’s what we’re going to hit,’” he said. “I’m sorry, it just didn’t happen. I can’t account for what sources might be telling you about what they heard. I’m telling you what we heard.” This is not what the Turkish source claimed, however, and Turkey so far is standing by its story.
Incredibly, even conservative media sources didn’t find anything strange about the reported arrangement in any event. As David Strom, writing for HotAir.com described it, “Still, I wonder if the Biden administration’s strategy in this case wasn’t making the best of a bad situation. I am not even certain that Israel itself wasn’t in the loop. They almost certainly were. Biden’s grand strategy is about as awful as it could be, but the tactical move in negotiating a telegraphed and very limited strike made sense. It’s Machiavellian, but so is war.” Rarely do I find myself at a loss for words, but it’s difficult to describe how misguided if not deranged this perspective truly is. One can only imagine telling Teddy Roosevelt that the US would at some point tacitly approve a first of its kind attack by our enemy on one of our allies acting under the assumption that the attack would be repelled and that would be the end of it, much less calling it a victory. First, it should go without saying that war is not a game. Modern missile defense technology is an amazing advance in defensive capability since Roosevelt’s day, but it is far from perfect and there was no guarantee the entire barrage would be destroyed. A single missile could’ve killed dozens, a handful, hundreds. There is no other way to frame this other than cold, callous, and willing to play with other people’s lies in a manner that is obscene if not outright evil. Second, it should also go without saying that the radical Islamicist leadership in Iran cannot be trusted under any circumstances. They backed the slaughter on October 7, but suddenly we are supposed to believe they would revert to some sick wargame strategy with the sole goal of saving face? They could just as easily have lied and launched something far more deadly without warning. Third, no matter the circumstances surrounding the attack, President Biden used his favorite word “don’t,” and they did, meaning once again he could not restrain even a backwater power like Iran – even after he’s been telling us for months that our own attacks against their interests have been designed for deterrence. Fourth, whether or not the attack was repelled, it remains unprecedented. Iran – seemingly with the tacit approval of the United States – directly attacked Israel for the first time. That alone is an escalation by any objective standard, one that is clearly not lost on the Iranians themselves, and one that is sure to happen again especially as we promptly urged Israel not to respond, likely sooner rather than later in the grand scheme of things. We keep insisting we do not want to escalate and start a larger war, but that’s exactly what happened, regardless of whether there were any casualties, and has been happening ever since October 7. An attack repelled remains an attack. To suggest it is not an escalation because no one died, is to miss the entire point.
Not surprisingly, Israel responded less than week later with an attack of its own inside Iran, launching a missile into the Ifsahan area. The specific type of missile is unknown and Iran is claiming there were no casualties as a result, indeed they claim there was no missile at all, merely mini drones in a “failed and humiliating attempt to fly quadcopters” that were shut down, but this too marks the first time Israel has struck directly at their adversary, meaning the two countries have crossed two previous red lines in less than seven days. Somehow, this is being positioned as a victory for diplomacy. As Reuters framed it, “The limited scale of the attack and Iran’s muted response appeared to signal a successful effort by diplomats who have been working to avert all-out war since an Iranian drone and missile attack on Israel on Saturday.” While they have been working hard, claiming their goal is not to escalate the already simmering conflict, the escalation they seek to avoid has steadily been occurring, the same as the proverbial frog in boiling water. Immediately after October 7, Iranian proxies including the Houtis and other terror groups began attacking US interests in the region and engaging in all out war on shipping. To date, there have been hundreds of these attacks, and three US servicemen are dead. The US has personally responded at least three times, while claiming this escalation is not in fact an escalation. Now, Israel and Iran have struck each other directly for the first time, and we’re told it’s a victory not just because they blocked the punch but also in stopping these escalations, making one wonder what would constitute a defeat. Meanwhile, everyone asks why Iran would launch an attack that was repelled, believing it has to have been to save face, while ignoring the obvious: The attack didn’t fail, if you look at their overall strategy rather than any single tactic. Iran succeeded in attacking Israel directly for the first time and watched as we urged our ally not to retaliate, meaning they can likely do it again and the only question is how many Israelis they can kill while we still keep insisting we don’t seek an escalation.
Like so much that has surrounded this conflict, escalation is the wrong way to frame the underlying dynamics. The question that needs to be asked is simple: If Iran had its way and could do what it wanted, would Israel continue to exist? To the extent that Iran hasn’t escalated in the way the term is being used, it’s only because they know they cannot win a direct confrontation, but what do you think will happen when they have nuclear weapons? The solution to the crisis, which does not necessarily have to be a military one, is to ensure they forever lack the means to truly threaten Israel in the short term and to make it clear that, should they continue to threaten Israel, they will be crushed in the long term. Pretending otherwise is merely to play these wargames on their terms, as they chip, chip, chip away at our resolve, convincing themselves they can get away with just a little bit more. Even if they ultimately cannot and at some point we will rouse ourselves from this stupor, hundreds if not thousands of lies hang in the balance, and if World War I teaches us anything, a single bullet can have devastating global consequences. These are the stakes we refuse to acknowledge. No surprisingly, much of the debate following the attack has been concerned with whether or not this would have happened if President Trump was in office. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and no one can say for sure, but one thing is certain: President Biden needs to be evaluated on his own merits as supposedly the 14th greatest president in history, but the fact remains that multiple wars – now four and counting – do not usually break out on the watches of great presidents for whatever reason. Teddy Roosevelt is on Mount Rushmore not because he led us into war or because the world went to war when he was president, but because it did not. He ended wars, rather than starting them. Alternatively, a great president such as Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Delano Roosevelt leads the country to victory, not asking for war, but doing what it takes once it comes. President Biden, unfortunately, is incapable of either.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 