United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken (L) and Jordan's Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi (R) convened in London on October 25, 2024. Blinken reassured European and Arab allies that Israel would need to retaliate, but Washington was actively managing the response.

Following Iranian missile strikes on Israel on October 1, the Biden administration urged Israel to exercise restraint. The US believed Israel had the time to carefully plan its response to the Iranian attack, which could have resulted in thousands of casualties if not for Israel's successful defense with US military support. There was concern that a hasty Israeli response could escalate tensions in the Middle East, especially with the US presidential election looming.

This narrative, based on insights from current and former US officials, details how the United States influenced Israel's decision-making process over three weeks before Israel finally retaliated with airstrikes on Saturday. These strikes targeted key Iranian air defenses and missile production facilities, significantly weakening Iran's military capabilities. Notably, they avoided sensitive nuclear sites and energy infrastructure, aligning with Biden's primary demands.

Jonathan Panikoff, a former deputy US national intelligence officer for the Middle East, emphasized the critical role of US pressure. He stated that Israeli decision-making would have been markedly different without the Biden administration's efforts to dissuade Israel from targeting nuclear or energy sites. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, denied that US pressure influenced Israel's choice of targets, asserting that decisions were based on national interests.

The Biden administration's initial response was to promise serious consequences for Iran's October 1 attack. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin engaged in numerous discussions with his Israeli counterpart, Yoav Gallant, to ensure any response was proportional. Secretary of State Antony Blinken also coordinated with European and Arab allies, assuring them that Washington was calibrating Israel's response.

Determining a proportional response that could deter further Iranian aggression was challenging. While Iran's October 1 strike resulted in only one fatality, many missiles evaded Israeli and US air defenses. Jeffrey Lewis, a non-proliferation expert, analyzed satellite imagery showing at least 30 impacts at Israel's Nevatim Airbase, suggesting Israel may have been conserving resources or deemed the facility resilient enough to withstand the attack.

Initially, Israel considered targeting Iran's nuclear and oil sites, but US officials presented alternative measures, including sanctions on Iran's oil sector and bolstering Israel's air defenses. The US also deployed the THAAD system to Israel, contingent on understanding Israel's attack plans. A call between Biden and Netanyahu on October 9 provided clarity, enabling the THAAD deployment.

As Iran warned of retaliatory strikes against Israel's supporters, Gulf states maintained neutrality. The Biden administration implemented sanctions on Iran's petroleum and petrochemical sectors, aiming to deter Iran without escalating the conflict. The US also conducted a strike against Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen using B-2 stealth bombers, demonstrating military capabilities.

Washington assured Israel of support if Iran pursued nuclear weapons, but emphasized the need for measured responses. Blinken's calibrated approach aimed to create diplomatic opportunities amidst regional turmoil. Neither Israel nor Iran signaled further escalation post-strike, but the potential for de-escalation remains uncertain.

Critics of Biden's strategy, including US Republicans like Mike Turner, argue it limits Israel's ability to counter Iran's threats. Aaron David Miller from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace suggests that ongoing strikes may expand Israel's risk tolerance, potentially escalating under a Trump presidency.

Source link:   https://www.khaleejtimes.com