Iran’s audacious attacks, executed through proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, extend beyond mere intimidation tactics against Israel. They pose a formidable threat to America’s well-being. Israel and the US must acknowledge that the notion of a ‘proportional’ response to Iran’s relentless onslaught of kamikaze drones, ballistic rockets, and cruise missiles is obsolete. After Iran’s massive aerial bombardment in retaliation to Israel’s comparatively minor strike on an annex of Iran’s embassy in Damascus, proportionality has become a defunct concept for Iran’s ruling regime.
Decades of diplomatic efforts by the West have dismally failed to bring Iran into compliance with international norms. It has become glaringly apparent that pursuing proportionality and diplomacy with Iran is a futile endeavor, yielding no tangible results. If Israel were part of NATO, the US would be obligated under Article 5 to participate in any counterstrike against Iran. However, Israel’s status as America’s ‘ally’ implies a subordinate position, suggesting that the ‘ironclad’ relationship between the two nations is susceptible to erosion under certain circumstances. The strength of this bond is currently being challenged in America by a burgeoning faction within the Democratic party’s far left.
These pro-Palestinian protestors openly celebrated Iran’s attack on Israel, prompting an enraged response from Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who denounced them as ‘antisemitic, anti-Israel, and pro-terrorist.’ He emphasized that they are not peace activists but individuals who revel in violent attacks on other countries. Clearly, America’s reluctance to join Israel in a counterstrike against Iran stems not only from the ambiguous definition of ‘ironclad’ but also from the vagaries of domestic political extremism and the intricate diplomatic landscape of the Middle East.
Former top Middle East policy official at the Pentagon, Dana Stroul, aptly noted, ‘Given the magnitude of this attack, it is difficult to fathom how Israel can refrain from responding.’ One must question why the Biden administration has explicitly distanced itself from actively supporting Israel in a military confrontation with Iran. Why does the US appear comfortable maintaining a passive stance despite its ‘ironclad’ commitment? What is it about Iran’s globally recognized status as the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism that gives America pause, preventing it from taking action against Iran’s relentless belligerence towards both Israel and the US? Why does the Biden administration seem to be retreating instead of standing firm and joining forces against Iran’s extremist Islamist regime?
How and why is it that America’s ‘ironclad’ relationship with Israel appears to be wavering in the face of Iran’s unwavering support for terrorist entities worldwide? Is America’s ‘ironclad’ commitment to Israel as malleable as the Biden White House insists, or is the term itself subject to diplomatic equivocation? Iran’s brazen attack on Israel marks a significant departure from its previous reliance on proxy warfare. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Yemen’s Houthis are mere pawns in Iran’s quest for global dominance. This direct assault from Iranian soil represents a historic escalation, revealing a dramatic shift in Iran’s mindset and operational capabilities.
While America understandably seeks to avoid a wider conflict in the Middle East, it is crucial to recognize that since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the Iranian government and its citizens have relentlessly chanted ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel.’ This mantra permeates Iranian society whenever these nations are discussed. Israel fully comprehends the ominous implications of these slogans, as evidenced by Iran’s erasure of Israel’s name from its maps, replacing it with ‘Palestine.’
Two fundamental questions emerge from this situation: Firstly, why is Iran’s ‘Death to America’ chant so difficult to comprehend, and secondly, what, if anything, does the US intend to do about it?
