IMMEDIATE RELEASE 7 October 2024
WASHINGTON MERRY-GO-ROUND
Today’s Events in Historical Perspective
America’s Longest-Running Column Founded 1932
The argument for a non-lethal response
By Douglas Cohn and Eleanor Clift
WASHINGTON – All eyes are on the Middle East as Israel weighs its reaction to the ballistic missile attack on its country by Iran. Multiple missiles were deterred and there were no casualties, but no nation can take such a bombardment and fail to respond.
Analysts say it is not a matter of if but when that we will see the Israeli response to this unprecedented attack launched by Iran. No nation could take this kind of a hit, and it would be futile to tell Israeli prime minister Netanyahu that he should stand down.
Assuming a military counter-response is inevitable, there is a way forward that would keep the lines of communication open between Iran and Israel and show restraint in a wider regional war.
It is called a non-lethal attack. With this scenario, Israel can bomb infrastructure devoid of people or military targets in Iran without killing and maiming civilians, thus avoiding all the negative blowback it has received for bombing Gaza, a densely populated area with many thousands of civilians caught in the crossfire. In doing so, Israel’s message would be clear: It can strike anyplace anytime, but intentionally chose restraint.
Why is it time to play nice? The Iranian public recently elected a new president, a retired cardiologist, Masoud Pezeshkian, a self-described moderate and reformer. The 69-year-old Pezeshkian is widely presumed to be in a power struggle with the now 85-year-old Ayatollah, the country’s supreme leader.
The new president has promised to revive the country’s lagging economy and ease the social restrictions on women. He was the surprise winner in a field that included hardline candidates and has talked about restoring relations with the West and returning to the treaty former President Trump pulled out of that prohibits Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Clearly, Iran is in the midst of a power struggle.
However, hawks would say that peace is not possible in this part of the world with its ancient enmities, and the only thing that Israel’s enemies understand is strength.
This, they would say, is the ideal time to strike at will. The Wall Street Journal said as much in its editorial titled, “If Not Now, When?” Its editorial brain trust makes the point that Israel is at the point now where it can vanquish its foes at home – Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon – and strike at the root of this evil in Tehran, where the regime funds and promotes its surrogates to do its dirty work.
But President Biden is arguing that now is the time for restraint, that a wider world will only bring more death and destruction, and Israel will never be able to live at peace with its neighbors.
Strength can be wielded in ways that are productive. The argument behind urging a non-lethal attack on Tehran would preserve some moral high ground while sending the message that Israel is holding back for a reason.
That reason has to do with the promise of a new generation in a country whose population yearns to re-enter the world instead of being consigned to a pariah nation.
Forty-five years ago, in 1979, President Jimmy Carter refused to bomb Tehran and inflict harm on a population that had little to do with the taking of American hostages that would ultimately doom his presidency. It was the right decision then, and in the centennial of Carter’s birth, and at a similar inflection point, Israel too can calibrate its response to meet the moment.
See Eleanor Clift’s book Selecting a President, and Douglas Cohn’s latest books The President’s First Year: The Only School for Presidents Is the Presidency and World War 4: Nine Scenarios (endorsed by seven flag officers).
Twitter: @douglas_cohn
© 2024 U.S. News Syndicate, Inc.
Distributed by U.S. News Syndicate, Inc.
END WASHINGTON MERRY-GO-ROUND