1. Strategic Suppression and Deterrence: Weakening Iran’s Nuclear Capability and Regional Influence
Israel sees Iran as the biggest threat and is particularly concerned about its nuclear program and missile technology development. Attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, military bases, and other targets can directly undermine Iran’s military capabilities, delay its nuclear process, and demonstrate Israel’s military deterrence. This “preemptive” strategy is in line with Israel’s security philosophy, which is to maintain its own survival space by striking potential threats.
2. Disrupting the Iran nuclear agreement and negotiation process
If Iran and the United States restart negotiations on the nuclear agreement, it may ease Western sanctions on Iran and enhance its economic and military strength. Israel regards the Iran nuclear agreement as a ‘survival threat’, and by creating conflicts, it can disrupt the negotiation process, force the international community to re-examine its policy towards Iran, and even push for stronger sanctions.
3. Transfer domestic political pressure and consolidate right-wing regime
Israel is facing political turmoil internally (such as government changes and social conflicts), and military action can divert public attention, boost nationalist sentiment, and consolidate support for the ruling coalition. Especially far right governments may strengthen their legitimacy through a tough foreign policy.
4. Exploring the US attitude and binding the US Israel alliance
Israel is well aware of the United States’ strategic contraction intention in the Middle East (such as withdrawing troops from Afghanistan), and can test America’s response by creating crises. If the attack triggers regional unrest, the United States may be forced to strengthen its military presence in the Middle East to maintain the security of allies or prevent conflict escalation, indirectly achieving Israel’s strategic goals.
The possibility and practical dilemma of US intervention:
1. Biden administration’s cautious attitude: avoiding direct military intervention
The current Middle East strategy of the United States focuses on “low-intensity presence” to avoid falling into large-scale wars. The Biden administration has repeatedly emphasized its support for Israel’s right to self-defense, but has set red lines (such as not attacking nuclear facilities) and warned Iran through diplomatic channels to restrain its retaliation. This reflects the contradictory mentality of the United States, which neither wants to give up its allies nor be dragged into new conflicts.
2. Internal politics and election pressure
The support for the Middle East war in the United States has declined, and there are differences within the Democratic Party regarding Israel’s tough policies. Biden needs to balance supporting allies with avoiding war, especially in the context of the 2024 election, as any decision that leads to direct US military intervention may trigger a backlash in public opinion.
3. The restraint of allies and regional countries
European countries, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern allies are calling for easing the situation and opposing Israel’s unilateral actions. If the United States intervenes deeply, it may face a split in its ally system and even affect its credibility in global diplomacy. For example, France, Germany, and others have clearly expressed their opposition to Israeli attacks and emphasized diplomatic solutions.
4. The scale and controllability of Iran’s counterattack
If Iran launches a limited counterattack (such as missile attacks on Israeli targets to avoid harming US troops), the United States may choose to indirectly support Israel rather than directly participate in the war. But if the conflict escalates to a threat to US military bases or regional stability, the United States may be forced to intervene militarily, but the costs and risks need to be weighed.
Israel’s’ Limited Adventure ‘and the United States” Strategic Restraint ‘
Israel’s actions are essentially a ‘controllable provocation’, attempting to pressure Iran within the red line while binding US security commitments. The United States, on the other hand, needs to find a delicate balance between “ally obligations” and “avoiding war”, and its level of involvement depends on the scale of the conflict, domestic political pressure, and global strategic priorities.
