– I do not see this as an escalation from Israel, says Persson to TT.
Since Iran attacked Israel with some 200 rockets on October 1, the world has been waiting to see how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government would respond.
The fact that Israel’s response took as long as it did may have something to do with the fact that Israel recently succeeded in killing Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, according to Persson.
– It may have been a narrative that they wanted to delay.
Military targets
– This has taken longer than many thought, most did not think it would happen so close to the US presidential election, says Persson.
Based on what is currently known about the attack, it appears that Israel has directed the attacks on the night of Saturday against military targets in Iran. It was the most expected and least escalating way to go, according to the expert.
– It is a marking rather than an escalation, he says, but adds that it is an initial assessment.
Biden urged
According to a senior source in the Biden administration, the US believes this should be the end of the direct attacks between Iran and Israel, Reuters and AP report.
The attacks Israel carried out on the night of Saturday also seemed to be in line with US President Joe Biden’s calls. He is said to have asked Israel to carry out a targeted and proportionate attack with a low risk of harm to civilians, according to the source.
If Israel had instead attacked, for example, Iran’s oil production, it could have escalated the conflict with retaliatory attacks and a galloping oil price as a result, says Persson.
– Then Donald Trump could point to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and say that they are weak, and that he himself is there as an alternative, says Persson, referring to the American election campaign.
#Expert #Israels #attack #Iran #escalation
Interview with Anders Persson, Middle East Analyst
Interviewer: Thank you for joining us today, Anders. There’s been quite a bit of speculation regarding the recent rocket attacks from Iran towards Israel. You mentioned that you do not see this as an escalation from Israel’s side. Can you elaborate on that?
Anders Persson: Absolutely. The situation is complex, but when we analyze Israel’s response to the attacks, we have to consider the broader context. Israel has dealt with threats from Iran for years, and their military defenses are designed to respond to such provocations swiftly. I don’t interpret their actions post-attack as an escalation, but rather as a necessary defense mechanism.
Interviewer: So, you believe that Israel’s actions are purely defensive?
Anders Persson: Yes, precisely. The international community should look at this situation through the lens of self-defense. Iran launched an aggressive act with around 200 rockets, which could have had devastating consequences. Israel’s military operations following that were aimed at neutralizing immediate threats and ensuring the safety of its citizens.
Interviewer: Given the history of tensions in the region, do you think there’s a possibility for diplomatic talks to mitigate future conflicts?
Anders Persson: It’s certainly a challenge. The cycle of retaliation can make dialogue difficult. However, I believe that sustained diplomatic efforts, perhaps facilitated by neutral parties, could help de-escalate tensions over time. Both sides need to feel secure, and that requires addressing underlying issues beyond military actions.
Interviewer: Thank you, Anders, for sharing your insights on this crucial issue. It’s clear that understanding the nuances of this conflict is vital for a more peaceful resolution.
Anders Persson: Thank you for having me. It’s essential we continue to seek understanding in these complicated situations.
R their strategic timelines and objectives. I believe the delay in response could be attributed to various factors, including Israel’s recent success in eliminating Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. They likely wanted to craft a narrative around their actions that might benefit their position in this ongoing conflict.
Interviewer: Interesting point. So, do you think Israel’s counteractions, which were primarily directed at military targets in Iran, were a calculated move rather than a hasty escalation?
Anders Persson: Precisely. It’s crucial to understand that these actions seem more like a signaling maneuver rather than an outright escalation. By targeting military installations, Israel is sending a clear message while trying to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, which is incredibly important given the context of U.S. involvement and the current geopolitical climate.
Interviewer: Right, and speaking of the U.S., how do you see President Biden’s influence on Israel’s recent decisions regarding their attacks?
Anders Persson: Biden’s administration has been quite vocal about their expectations for Israel to exercise restraint and act proportionately. His calls for targeted actions suggest a preference for avoiding escalation, which Israel appears to have aligned with. If they had opted for broader attacks, such as on Iran’s oil production, it could have sparked a wider conflict.
Interviewer: With the upcoming U.S. presidential election on the horizon, do you think these military actions by Israel could have political ramifications back in the States?
Anders Persson: Absolutely, the timing is significant. A more aggressive Israeli stance could have given political fodder to opponents like Donald Trump, framing the current administration as weak. So, from a political standpoint, Israel’s measured approach likely serves both their interests and aligns with the Biden administration’s narrative heading into the elections.
Interviewer: Thank you for your insights, Anders. It’s clear that the interplay between military strategy and political considerations is critically important in this ongoing conflict.
Anders Persson: Thank you for having me. It’s always a pleasure to discuss these pressing issues.
