Iran has attacked Israel. Peter Hartcher on what happens next

Published Oct 2, 2024, 7:01 PM

It’s been  the question on everyone’s minds, since Iran launched a direct attack on Israel on Wednesday, shooting dozens of ballistic missiles into the country.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to retaliate. And Iran has warned that any retaliation will result in a “more crushing and ruinous” response. 

Today, international and political editor, Peter Hartcher, on how this attack differs from Iran's first attack on Israel, earlier this year. And if Benjamin Netanyahu might see this moment, as one former Israeli prime minister said this week, as “the biggest opportunity in the past 50 years” to change the face of the region.

From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Salinger Morris. It's Thursday, October 3rd. Is the Middle East on the precipice of a wider war? It's been the question on everyone's minds ever since Iran launched a direct attack on Israel on Wednesday, shooting dozens of ballistic missiles into the country. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to retaliate, and Iran has warned that any retaliation will result in a more crushing and ruinous response. Today, international and political editor Peter Hartcher on how this attack differs from Iran's first attack on Israel earlier this year. And if Benjamin Netanyahu might see this moment, as one former Israeli prime minister said this week as the biggest opportunity in the past 50 years to change the face of the region. So, Peter, Australians woke to the news on Wednesday morning that Iran had directly attacked Israel. Tell us what happened.

Well, for the second time in the history of the two nations, the Iranian government ordered a ballistic missile strike against Israel. The first occasion was in April, where it fired about 300 missiles and drones. This time, according to the Israelis, the Iranians have fired about 180 ballistic missiles at Israel.

Just hours ago, the Iranian regime launched an unprecedented assault on Israel, launching close to 200 ballistic missiles at our civilian population. An attack on this scale has not been seen since the Blitz of London.

Ballistic missiles alone is a more serious effort than the previous one. And remember, in the April attack, A bare handful of those 300 actually made it into Israel. Not one person was killed. No serious injuries. But yet again, it seems from what the Israelis are telling us, that once again, the Iranians have been exposed as being pretty ineffectual because, again, no deaths as we speak. The Israelis are saying there's no deaths, no serious injuries. So if this is the best the Iranians can do, Israel is looking pretty impervious to Iran's efforts so far.

Okay. So I want to ask you then about what Iran's messaging might be with this, because on the eve of this latest attack, Iran's foreign minister wrote on social media that Iran's action was concluded unless Israel retaliates. I mean, do you think this is an indication of fear on the part of Iran as to how Israel will respond?

Yes. Look, although these two attacks are serious attacks, this is not a full out all on maximum effort from Iran. This is a very calculated and calibrated attack. Again, like the one in April, the Iranians are estimated by the Institute of Strategic Studies in London to have about 3500 surface to surface missiles. If they wanted to overwhelm the Israeli defense air defense mechanisms, they would be firing many more. They would also have the Houthis, who still have a capability firing missiles at Israel. At the same time, Israel has managed to degrade Hezbollah, but Hezbollah still has some capability to fire missiles. They would all be firing simultaneously. There'd be many more. The Iranian air force didn't take off. And where are the threats of imminent nuclear war from Iran? Instead, the Iranians are making, I think, a fairly calculated and restrained attack, serious but restrained And immediately, as you said, their missiles hadn't even taken off yet. And the Iranians are saying, oh, but we're not going to fire any more. Mhm. This is not a country that is, uh, pursuing a continuing war. This is a country making what it thinks it has to do as a minimum, preservation of its own political and strategic credibility and hoping like hell that it ends there.

And it's interesting, though, the timing. I mean, obviously, it's in retaliation for Israel killing Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah. But the attack also does come only a week after Iran's new president told world leaders at the UN General Assembly that his government wanted to defuse tensions and get along with the West.

Has been to establish and promote truth and justice in society among all people, regardless of color, race, gender or language. Peace and security in the world will not be achieved unless the rights of all individuals, communities and nations are upheld with justice and fairness.

His speech was even described as unusually reconciliatory. So is there chaos in Iran at the moment? I mean, does that indicate some sort of serious fissure?

I guess no, and I think the two parts are consistent. Hitting Israel in this limited and constrained way are in retaliation for serial Israeli violations of Iranian airspace, Iranian sovereignty, the as you said, the death of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Iranian sponsored um, Hezbollah movement, the deaths of multiple Iranian military commanders, um, the incursions into Lebanon, which we now see, uh, in a more concerted way, unfolding in response to all of that, it was simply the pressure on the president of Iran. pezeshkian to provide some sort of retaliation or response to all of these. Israeli acts was simply overwhelming, not only from his own regime, but from the region at large. It would have looked a completely passive and lame if they'd done nothing, and yet at the same time consistent, I think with that is Pushkin doing doing two things at home. And let me go back one step. The reason that Pezeshkian is the president Pezeshkian is a moderate and a reformer, and he was allowed to run for the presidency by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei in July. Uh, what? What does that tell you? That tells you that the regime which vets the candidates for the presidency, wanted to create the option for a more conciliatory reformist leader? Uh, the regime is suffering really badly from from two principal problems, are quite apart from the Israeli problem. Pre-existing one is the sanctions, which have been crushing the Iranian economy for years now, and it's really being felt. Um, second, the death by the Iranian so-called morality police beating Mahsa Amini, the Iranian woman, for failing to wear a hijab in public, produced not only a lot of resistance, but that confrontation between the regime and women that followed produced a lot of bad blood. The regime from all available indications, and there aren't many, but all available indications are that the regime is deeply unpopular. The economy is tanking. This is a regime under pressure. And in response, the Supreme Leader Khamenei, has allowed this option for a reformist president to be elected. The people chose him. He's now in power. And what you heard him say to the UN General Assembly last week, I think is sincere. They do not want to escalate the confrontation with the West. He has said he wants to renegotiate with the West to have the sanctions lifted. He's prepared to to enter negotiations again over the nuclear program. This is a regime in a very conciliatory frame of mind, because it's a regime that is weak and suffering on multiple levels. So I don't think it's inconsistent that they have to provide some sort of face saving response to the Israelis. On the one hand, while trying to engage the broader international, the West, to try to get some of this economic pressure removed while trying some sort of conciliation domestically. They have backed off on the enforcement of the hijab rule. And I think the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, knows this, has sensed this and is treating it accordingly. This is not a country spoiling for a fight. Netanyahu is taking that opportunity to hit it. I'm confident that the Consequences won't be an all out response from Iran that's still available to them, but we have not seen it yet.

We'll be right back. Now, Peter, I want to turn to what Israel response has been to this attack by Iran. So what has Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in response?

Well, he said, they've made a very big mistake. The Iranians and that they're going to pay a high price.

Iran has Iran made a big mistake tonight and it will pay for it. The regime in Iran does not understand our determination to defend ourselves and our determination to retaliate against our enemies.

Interestingly enough, he always says that. Interestingly enough, though, a more variegated series of responses come from the white House in April, after the Iranian attack, Joe Biden pleaded with Netanyahu to be restrained in response. This time he said, no such thing this time. Biden has said the Israelis are entitled to retaliate. We are working with them on that and we'll see what happens. There's been no word of the Americans asking Israel to show restraint. Mhm.

So tell me the significance of that, because that is a fairly sizable shift. I would have thought. Yeah.

I think it tells you that first Biden is under pressure at home and his his Democratic replacement on the ticket Kamala Harris to be tough in the defense of Israel. Second, I think it shows that Biden, like Netanyahu, knows that Iran is in a fairly vulnerable position and that the consequences of any, you know, escalation will be limited, that, you know, for decades we've been hearing about the imminent Iranian nuclear program. In July, the US secretary of state, Tony Blinken, said Iran was 1 to 2 weeks away from nuclear breakout in July. So where is this famous bomb? The Iranians are not even talking about it. The program is has been apparently has been put on hold. The Iranians are pleading for negotiations over their nuclear status to get the sanctions lifted. And I think Biden, like Netanyahu, sees this very clearly and sees that the Iranian capacity for response is very limited. I'll just ask you one further question which countries which allies of Iran have rushed to its defense? The Lebanese haven't. They've their army has pulled back from the border, in effect washing their hands, saying Israel. This is not our fight. You hit. You hit Hezbollah as much as you want. We're not going to help them. Um, where's the support from the Russians? The Iranians have been sending drones to Russia for a year by the thousands. Where's the support from Russia? We don't see the Russian air base in Syria or Russian missiles in Syria being activated in defense. Nobody is coming to the defense of Iran. Iran is weak. It's it's under pressure. It's isolated. I think Netanyahu is emboldened by all of that. And Biden, I think, shares that judgment.

So do you think, then, that Netanyahu might take this opportunity to finally attack Iran's nuclear facility? Because I did notice that Naftali Bennett, a former Israeli prime minister, wrote on social media that now, now is the time. This is the biggest opportunity in the past 50 years. Bennett wrote. And now is the time to destroy the nuclear project. So do you think it must be tempting?

I think it's very tempting. I think it would be entirely justified after this latest ballistic missile attack against Israel. It'll be a matter of fine judgment for the Israelis. What retaliatory targets they strike.

Do you think in a wider way than Netanyahu does want a war with Iran?

Well, what Netanyahu has done is to, first of all, extend the retaliation against Hamas for its initial raid into Israel, having degraded Hamas now to take the opportunity to assault Hezbollah. And of course, it wasn't unprovoked. Hezbollah had been firing missiles in again in a restrained but regular fashion into Israel for a full year. Interesting. Another detail there, by the way, is we know from reporting by Axios in the US, but also the Wall Street Journal, that the Iranians have been restraining Hezbollah from firing more missiles into Israel. Another sign that Iran is a country that just does not want a full on war with Israel. So that's another sign. So Netanyahu has taken advantage of the initial Hamas attack to degrade Hamas. He has now decapitated and is continuing now to dismember Hezbollah. Suppressing attacks. Missile attacks from smaller militia groups in Iraq and in Syria. Retaliating against the Houthis in Yemen. And that may yet escalate. And taking the opportunity to do what are pretty much now what he wants to do against Iran. This is really a fascinating, illuminating moment. This shows us the strength of Israel, that it can deal with all of these fronts simultaneously. You know the metaphor. This has been called the ring of fire that the Iranians have put around Israel to burn it to death. All of their proxy groups, the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the other militias in Syria and Iraq. That's the ring of fire. And it's been lit and it's been burning. It's supposed to have burned Israel to a crisp and not have to involve Iran at all. But what's happening is that the ring of fire has been it's smoldering. It's largely been put out, leaving a direct confrontation between Iran and Israel. Now, this is the confrontation. Iran didn't want. But Israel, to answer your question, is happy to bring it on. It feels its strength. It sees the weakness of its enemy. Netanyahu wants to continue the war. His best hope of holding office is to continue the war. Although in recent weeks his opinion polling in Israel has recovered to the point where there's speculation among commentators in Israel now that he'll call an early election to take advantage of this bump up in his popularity. Why is he popular all of a sudden? Because of his strikes on Hezbollah? He's pretty much recovered to where he was before the initial Hamas attack. He may well take that opportunity to extend his power by calling an early election, but that is his ultimate game. It's a narrow personal political game gain to hold power as long as possible. Extend the war. Have an election. See what comes next.

All I wanted to ask you about this because you have just written about this, and you've called this Netanyahu's bunker mentality, which is like you said, to, you know, he's got this narrow goal of really holding on to power at any price as opposed to converting. I'm going to quote you here, his country's military gain into a sustainable new political reality. So what might his calculations be now?

Well, on this occasion, since he started attacking Hezbollah, the Israeli people have decided that his political purpose happens to suit their national interest. So that's why it's working for him. He's been going with the desires and demands of the right wing, extreme elements in his coalition as the key to holding his coalition together, and it's worked for him, and he will continue that for as long as he thinks he needs to. Now, as you said, at some point, if you want to turn your military gains into an enduring new reality, You have to have a political outcome. You have to have a political situation. He's shown no interest in even beginning that he's not articulated a strategy. The famous Prussian strategist Clausewitz said that in every war the victor will achieve. The culminating point of victory was the key phrase. And beyond the culminating point of victory, your gains start to degrade and become counterproductive. Now Netanyahu has to have the judgment. Where is that point? How do I translate my advantage on the ground into a political resolution that will endure? So far, he's shown no indication of being ready to do that. If he does, in fact, call an early election and can extend his term that way and perhaps increase his majority, maybe that will give him from his own bunker mentality. He'll be allowed to come out of the bunker and come up with a strategy to achieve a lasting political reality, to endure from this military victory.

Well, thank you so much, Peter, for your time.

Pleasure, Samantha.

Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Kai Huang. Our head of audio is Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is a production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy the show and want more of our journalism, subscribe to our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what we do. Search the age or Smh.com.au forward slash. Subscribe and sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of the day's most important news, analysis and insights in your inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Salinger Morris. This is the morning edition. Thanks for listening.