Why did Iran take the Israeli bait?

Iran’s launching of 180 ballistic missiles on Israel last week was some statement. Yes, most were knocked out. Yes, the sole fatality was an unfortunate Palestinian in Jericho hit by debris. Yes, these missiles did little damage.

But this, the second such direct Iranian strike on Israel this year, was all about showing that Iran was not cowed.

Questions abound. Answers, convincing ones at least, are rare. To what extent have all the events of the last year over Gaza, the last month between Israel and Hezbollah and between Iran and Israel been by design? Or are they just a series of responses to the latest escalation? Where does this go now? Most crucially, how does it end?

My columns have hammered Israel for its lack of strategy, while acknowledging its tactical and operational brilliance. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is responsible for the former but, as the polls improve for him, his strategy may have moved beyond just personal survival to, as he has claimed, reordering the entire region. He boasted that the removal of Saddam Hussein would achieve this back in 2003. And who thinks that was a tremendous success?

One wonders whether the Iranian leadership would have been wiser to reign in Hezbollah earlier to prevent this outcome

Chris Doyle

But what of Iran? Does it still have a viable strategy? From its vantage point, one might understand its development over the last two decades of a so-called axis of resistance. Back in 2003, Iran seemed surrounded, with the US in both Iraq and Afghanistan. America and Israel have a hostile posture.

Hezbollah in particular was a potent deterrent. That asset is now compromised. Israel has infiltrated the group, decapitated most of its leadership and is hell-bent on finishing the job. One wonders whether the Iranian leadership would have been wiser to reign in Hezbollah earlier to prevent this outcome. It underestimated Israel, just as Israel had underestimated Hamas.

Ballistic missile attacks on Israel hardly help Iran. These are a gift for Netanyahu, who is itching to deal Tehran a massive blow. Netanyahu can argue that these missiles could have killed thousands if they had not been stopped. Ten million Israelis, including Palestinian citizens of Israel, were terrified.

All the pressure on Israel that was slowly building up has evaporated. Back in April, many European states were on the cusp of an arms embargo. British ministers admitted to me that those Iranian attacks released all the pressure to hold Israel to account. It should not have done, but that was the political reality.

Some argue Iran had a right to defend itself. Like any state, it does — when attacked. Israel also claimed that right after the Oct. 7 attacks. Iran was attacked when Israel assassinated Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, as it was when Israel bombed its consular building in Damascus.

But that term “defend” has been hugely abused. Israel was not defending itself when putting 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza under siege. Bombing civilian targets is not defense. Iran has given missiles to all sorts of groups in the Middle East, including Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, all of which have fired on Israeli civilians. Lest one forgets, Hezbollah has killed Lebanese, Palestinians and Syrians. The Houthis sent missiles to hit Saudi Arabia, as well as civilian shipping in the Red Sea. Iran cannot just pretend it had nothing to do with this.

Even if legal arguments do not convince, what about the rational arguments? Will they help Iran or Iranians be safer? Will they liberate one inch of Palestine or Lebanon? Will one Palestinian or Lebanese be freer or safer? Will they stop a genocide?

Beware states and leaders that feel they have to prove they are strong. Real strength is about making the right choices, not posturing

Chris Doyle

The answer to all of these questions is a resounding no. Civilians across the Middle East are less safe. Israel will continue to ramp up its attacks on Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon. By the time this article is in print, Israel may have bombed Iran.

What has held Netanyahu back in the past is the uncertainty of the US support required to do this. Israel needs US military capabilities to hit Iranian nuclear facilities and also to protect it from any counterattack.

President Joe Biden is cornered. He cannot or will not thwart an Israeli response. Netanyahu can proceed knowing that the US weapons pipeline will continue, but also that US military assets in the region are at his disposal. Should he be wearing his pyromaniac hat, he can set fire to the region.

All of this must have been clear to the Iranian leadership. Perhaps the new reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian, elected to break free of international isolation, was against it, but the hard-liners clearly won the argument.

Beware states and leaders that feel they have to prove they are strong. Netanyahu falls into that category, but so too do the Iranian leaders. Real strength is about making the right choices, not posturing.

Iran can only lose down this path, as will Israel. Many Iranians know that and are not impressed. Iran and Israel are both guilty of reckless violent behavior and of refusing real steps to compromise. Netanyahu has been deliberately goading Iran for months, baiting it. On Oct. 1, it took the bait and the region — civilians above all — will now pay the price in yet more blood.

• Chris Doyle is director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding in London. X: @Doylech