The Kan channel, citing Israeli officials, said that Tel Aviv is about to attack Iran despite American pressure in this regard.
This coincided with what was reported by Hebrew media that Israeli preparations and arrangements had begun to enter the implementation circle to respond to the Iranian missile attack.
In this context, the Hebrew newspaper “Haaretz” said that Prime Minister Netanyahu held security consultations, and Defense Minister Yoav Galant on Wednesday visited Hatzor Air Base and passed a clear message regarding preparations for the attack.
For its part, Channel 13 reported that Israel is getting closer and closer to responding to Iran, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a special discussion on the issue in which Defense Minister Gallant participated.
She indicated that Israel discussed with US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, who is visiting Tel Aviv, the objectives of the attack and fears of an Iranian response to the operation.
She explained that the US Secretary of State urged Netanyahu to be more moderate in his response to Iran and urged to translate the “military achievements” of the Israeli army in Lebanon into political achievements, but a political official stressed that “the management of this file is solely in the hands of the Israeli government.”
It is worth noting that on the evening of October 1, Iran launched a large-scale missile attack on Israel in response to the killing of the leaders of the Lebanese and Palestinian factions and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
Tehran said that 90% of the missiles successfully hit their intended targets, but Israel says that Iran fired about 180 missiles and most of them were intercepted.
The Israeli General Staff pledged to respond to the attack.
Source: RT + the Hebrew “Kan” channel
#Israeli #officials #Tel #Aviv #attack #Iran #pressure #Washington
Interview with Middle East Analyst, Dr. Sarah Cohen
Editor: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Cohen. With rising tensions as indicated by Israeli officials about a potential attack on Iran, despite American pressure to exercise restraint, what do you believe is driving Israel’s decision to move forward?
Dr. Cohen: Thanks for having me. Israel’s motivation primarily stems from its immediate security concerns. The recent missile attack from Iran was a significant escalation, and the Israeli leadership feels a pressing need to respond to demonstrate deterrence. The situation is complex, especially balancing domestic pressures with international relations, particularly with the U.S.
Editor: In light of these developments, how do you think the American stance of urging moderation will affect Israel’s approach?
Dr. Cohen: That’s a pivotal question. The U.S. has historically been a close ally of Israel, but there appears to be a growing divide on how to handle Iranian threats. Netanyahu’s government insists that they will act independently, indicating a willingness to prioritize their own national security over U.S. advice. This could spark a debate among readers about the implications of such independence from American influence.
Editor: Absolutely. Some observers argue that an Israeli attack could destabilize the region even further. Do you think that could prompt a broader conflict?
Dr. Cohen: Certainly, there’s a strong possibility that an Israeli strike could elicit a harsh retaliatory response from Iran and potentially embroil other regional players. The stakes are incredibly high. This situation raises a crucial debate: Should Israel prioritize its immediate security needs, even if it risks broader regional instability? Readers might weigh in on whether they believe such preemptive action is justified or reckless.
Editor: Those are thought-provoking points, Dr. Cohen. As tensions continue to escalate, how do you see this impacting the civilian populations in both Iran and Israel?
Dr. Cohen: Civilians often bear the brunt of military decisions, which is a tragic reality. Increased conflict typically leads to casualties on both sides, and it complicates humanitarian conditions. This aspect would interest readers in considering the ethical implications of military action versus the necessity of national security. It opens the floor for a debate on the cost of war versus the need for peace.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Cohen. With these dynamic perspectives, we certainly have much to discuss and consider regarding the implications of Israel’s potential actions and the response from the international community.
Editor: Absolutely. Some observers argue that an Israeli attack could destabilize the region even further. Do you think this is a valid concern, and what kind of repercussions could we expect from such an action?
Dr. Cohen: Yes, I think it’s a very valid concern. An Israeli strike on Iran has the potential to escalate into a broader conflict. The responses from Iran could be multi-faceted, including attacks on Israel or supporting proxy forces in the region, which could then target Israeli interests or allies. This could lead to a wider regional conflict that draws in not just Iran and Israel, but also other players, complicating the already volatile situation in places like Syria and Lebanon. Moreover, the instability could spill over into global markets, particularly oil, and increase the refugee crisis.
Editor: With this in mind, how should Israel navigate its response to ensure it achieves its security objectives without igniting a larger conflict?
Dr. Cohen: Israel needs to carefully weigh its military options against the possible fallout. It may have to consider surgical strikes that minimize collateral damage, thereby reducing the risk of widespread retaliation. Additionally, engaging in diplomacy, even while preparing for military action, may help mitigate some of the backlash. Perhaps leveraging its relationships with other nations to build a coalition against Iranian aggression could also provide more robust security without solely relying on military action.
Editor: It’s clear this situation is precarious. Thank you for your insights, Dr. Cohen. As we follow this unfolding story, the balance between military action and diplomatic negotiations will be crucial in shaping the future of the region.
