The Three Dramatic Consequences of Israel's Attack on Iran

'Battles are the principal milestones in secular history,' Winston Churchill observed in his magisterial biography of the Duke of Marlborough in 1936. 'Modern opinion resents this uninspiring truth … But great battles, won or lost, change the entire course of events, create new standards of values, new moods, new atmospheres, in armies and in nations, to which all must conform.' So it was then, and so it is today.
Iran's war with Israel is rooted in the Islamic Republic's inveterate hostility to the Jewish state. It has consisted of multiple campaigns, including terror attacks against Jewish communities abroad (Argentina in 1994, for example) and missile salvos aimed at Israel (including from Lebanon and Iran itself last year). But three great events—the smashing of Hezbollah, the Syrian revolution that overthrew the Iranian-aligned regime, and now a climactic battle waged by long-range strikes and Mossad hit teams in Tehran—are changing the Middle East. We are living through the kind of moment that Churchill described.
Israel's current campaign is built around two realities often missed by so-called realists: first, that the Iranian government is determined to acquire nuclear weapons and cannot be deterred, bought off, or persuaded to do otherwise, and second, that Israel reasonably believes itself to be facing an existential threat.
When I served as counselor of the State Department during the second Bush administration, I had, among other keepsakes on my desk, an Iranian banknote picked up in Dubai. When I held it up to the light, I could see the sign of an atom superimposed over a map of Iran, with its nucleus roughly over Natanz, site of the major Iranian centrifuge hall. The banknote was a symbol of the determination that successive American governments chose to ignore, preferring to negotiate with a regime whose bad faith and malevolence were plain for those willing to see. The Iranian regime was happy to delay and temporize, but its destination was clearly visible in the expanding overt and covert programs to enrich uranium, design warheads, and develop delivery systems.
Equally visible was Tehran's desire to destroy Israel. It takes a particular kind of idiocy or bad faith to disregard the speeches, propaganda, and shouts of 'death to Israel.' The Israeli lesson learned from the previous century—and, indeed, the Jewish one learned over a much longer span of time—is that if someone says they want to exterminate you, they mean it. And so Israel has acted in ways that have had three dramatic consequences.
The first is the emergence of a distinct mode of warfare, already apparent in some of Ukraine's operations in Russia, that combines special operations with precision long-range strikes. Special operations are nothing new—the British secret services of the time played a role in a nearly successful bomb plot against Napoleon. But the innovation is combining large-scale and systematic use of assassinations and sabotage with nearly simultaneously precision strikes. Similar techniques helped decapitate Hezbollah's leadership and devastate its middle ranks while smashing its arsenals, but Israel's campaign against Iran is on an altogether different scale.
This mode of warfare will not work everywhere, but in this case Israeli special operations helped neuter Iran's defenses and kill many of its senior leaders and nuclear scientists. The sobering lesson for the United States is that others can, at some point, do this to us more easily than we might be able to use these methods against a country like China. It is, in any event, part of the new face of war.
The second is the way that the wars that began with Hamas's attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, have reshaped the Middle East. Iran's position had been drastically weakened through the loss of its proxy forces in Lebanon and Syria, and now this current round of attacks has the potential to jeopardize the Iranian regime itself.
The Iranian regime has delivered only misery and repression to its people. In return it was once offered religious and revolutionary zeal, which has been largely replaced by cynicism and hatred of the leadership. It had, and has now lost, imperial reach throughout the Middle East and beyond. The very last thing it offered was the prestige of its pursuit of nuclear weapons—weapons that Westerners may view with horror, but that others in the world (think India and Pakistan, for example) value quite differently. After losing all of these achievements to its own brutality and incompetence, as well as Israeli hit squads and fighter-bombers, all that the regime has left are its mechanisms of repression. Ultimately, those will not suffice to sustain it.
Israel (and for that matter the United States) does not overtly aim at overthrowing the regime; neither has the intention of invading the country in the manner of Iraq in 2003. But a form of regime change may come—possibly through public upheaval, or just as likely through the rise of some strongman, probably from the military or security services, who will take Iran in a different direction. Perhaps such a strongman will lead Iran to some dark new place. But he could also proceed along the lines of Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, denouncing and disposing of some of the current elite on charges of treachery, incompetence, and corruption to consolidate his power, and then acting as a dictatorial modernizer. That would be the first step on a much better path for Iran and the rest of the world.
The Western world has reason, as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently said, to be grateful to Israel for doing the 'dirty work' of smashing Iran's nuclear program, because a nuclear-armed Iran would be a menace not just to Israel but to the wider Middle East and to the West. Which brings us to the third great shift in moods and atmospheres, the characteristically over-the-top, bellicose rhetoric of Donald Trump.
At first the American government hastened to distance itself from the Israeli attacks, in a swift and now rather embarrassing statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. But over time the president, communicating through explosive statements on Truth Social, began using the first-person plural in talking about the Israeli attacks, celebrating the American military hardware used in the attack, threatening worse to come, musing about killing the supreme leader of Iran, and clearly contemplating finishing the job of destroying the Iranian nuclear complex by sending B-2 bombers to deliver 15-ton GBU-57 penetrating bombs on the deeply subterranean Fordow facility.
This has aroused consternation among some of his core supporters, such as Tucker Carlson (dismissed by the president as 'kooky') and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, and required the dispatch of Vice President J. D. Vance to quiet the protests of the isolationist, and in some cases borderline anti-Semitic, wing of the MAGA movement.
Trump's turnaround is less surprising when one considers his political gifts, among them a feral instinct for weakness. He is a politician who is willing to kick opponents when they are down, and enjoys doing just that. He senses, far better than most of his advisers and experts, just how weak Iran is. No doubt as well, he delights in the opportunity to punish the regime that plotted to assassinate him in 2024.
And he has aspirations to be not a warlord, much though he delights in military bluster and show, but a kind of peacemaker. He understands that a different kind of Iran—if not a democratic one, then a tamed dictatorship—would be open for deals, and he would gladly make them. He has engaged more with the Persian Gulf in recent years than with any other part of the world, and sees opportunities there. He believes that the price would be low, and although the Israelis have done the heavy lifting, he will get the credit from them and others for the finishing touches.
Trump has undoubtedly already authorized various forms of support to Israel's campaign. He may or may not order the dropping of GBU-57s on Fordow. But he has, in any case, supported actions that are doing far more than those of any of his predecessors to eliminate a threat that has already killed American soldiers and civilians as well as many others, and that would be infinitely worse if left unchecked. Much as it may pain his critics to admit it, in this matter he is acting, if not conventionally, then like a statesman of a distinctively Trumpian stamp.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Fox News

11 minutes ago

• Fox News

Large city signs onto deal with ICE: 'Keep the American people safe'

City commissioners in Miami, Florida, voted 3-2 on Tuesday to allow police officers to work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The city entered a 287(g) partnership with ICE, which various cities use to assist with federal enforcement using different methods. It's a sharp contrast to some governments throughout the United States, especially in major cities, which do not allow local or state authorities to help enforce immigration laws. "We value our partnerships with state and local law enforcement, and the success of the 287(g) program allows for a force multiplier in enforcing immigration laws," an ICE spokesperson said in a statement. "This whole-of-government approach enables law enforcement partners to protect cities across the nation from public safety and national security threats, and we encourage others across the country to join." In February, Gov. Ron DeSantis issued an Executive Order for state-level law enforcement to establish agreements with ICE to assist in the Trump administration's deportation efforts. "Florida is setting the example for states in combating illegal immigration and working with the Trump Administration to restore the rule of law," DeSantis said at the time. "By allowing our state agents and law enforcement officers to be trained and approved by ICE, Florida will now have more enforcement personnel deputized to assist federal partners. That means deportations can be carried out more efficiently, making our communities safer as illegal aliens are removed." However, there was opposition to entering the agreement from some residents and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Florida Immigrant Coalition. "This is a shameful day for Miami," Dariel Gomez, Statewide Organizer with the ACLU of Florida said in a press release. "With their vote, commissioners chose fear over facts, and division over unity. This agreement will not make us safer – it will only spread fear and isolate the very people who make our city strong." "287(g) doesn't belong in any city, but especially not in Miami – a place shaped by immigrants, built by immigrants, and powered by immigrants," Tessa Petit, Executive Director of the Florida Immigrant Coalition, said in a statement. "More than half of our residents are foreign-born. The commissioners who voted to implement this ruthless program have turned their back on the very community they were put into office to protect. They are turning our diversity into a target." However, the White House told Fox News Digital the city's decision was ultimately the right move. "President Trump's promise to deport illegal aliens is a key plank of his agenda to Make America Safe Again. The Administration is always grateful to work with state and local officials to get dangerous criminals off the streets and keep the American people safe." Abigail Jackson, White House spokeswoman, stated. In April, a massive ICE operation in collaboration with Florida authorities led to the arrest of 1,120 illegal immigrants, and the agency said 63% of them had "existing criminal arrests or convictions," and many had alleged gang affiliations.

The Hill

11 minutes ago

• The Hill

How the AP decided to refer to the conflict between Israel and Iran as a war

The Associated Press is calling the current conflict between Israel and Iran a war, given the scope, intensity and duration of military activities on both sides. Other news organizations also have decided to refer to the conflict as a war, while some are still sticking with words such as 'conflict' or 'fighting.' When a conflict in the world spills into military action, it's important to use the correct terms to describe it. Sometimes a one-sided attack occurs without further action, or a conflict bubbles up and then ends quickly Using 'war' widely to describe these kinds of situations can diminish the word's importance. Then, when actual war breaks out, people might not understand its significance. The Merriam-Webster definition of war is quite broad: 'A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations,' or 'a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.' The fight between Israel and Iran meets those criteria, though neither has officially declared war. Since Israel launched an air campaign targeting Iran's military and nuclear program, there has been a significant escalation in the conflict. Iran has launched hundreds of missiles and drones into Israel. Israel has assassinated high-level Iranian officials; targeted the country's infrastructure; called for hundreds of thousands of residents to evacuate Iran's capital, Tehran; and said it will continue its offensive. The AP provided guidance on the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas war in the days and weeks after fighting began. In both cases, editors considered the number of casualties, the intensity of fighting, the involvement of each party, and what each country was calling the conflict. In both cases, the AP started using the word 'war' to describe the conflicts. AP capitalizes the word 'war' only as part of a formal name, which as of now does not exist. Decisions on how AP uses the term 'war' happen in real time. AP's news leaders and standards editors will continue to monitor developments to see whether changes are necessary. At this point, the level of fighting constitutes the countries being at war, no matter what happens next. If fighting were to end soon, AP would continue saying the countries had been at war. News leaders would consider whether the level of fighting at that time amounted to being at war. If other countries intervene in the war, AP would describe the intervention as military action in support of Israel or military support of Iran. AP would also consider whether the action constitutes those countries also being at war.

CBS News

12 minutes ago

• CBS News

Iranian strike in Israel injures nearly 2 dozen, emergency officials say, amid diplomatic efforts

Iran launches more missiles into Israel as conflict continues into 8th day An Iranian missile strike on Friday wounded 23 people in the northern part of Israel, emergency services Magen David Adom said, as the two countries continued exchanging more strikes. Three were seriously injured, including a 16-year-old boy, who suffered shrapnel wounds to his upper body, MDA said. Two others – a 40-year-old and a 54-year-old man – had shrapnel wounds on their legs, and one woman had a heart attack while sheltering and died, paramedics said. Israeli emergency personnel respond at the scene of a damaged building in Haifa following an Iranian missile strike. Ilia Yefimovich/picture alliance via Getty Images An Israeli military official said Iran had fired approximately 20 missiles at Israel in the attack, which came as a diplomatic effort to negotiate a settlement to the conflict began in Geneva between European foreign ministers and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Ahead of the meeting, Araghchi said his country has "nothing to discuss" with the United States as long as Israel continues its strikes on Iran, but is open to "dialogue" with others, though not negotiations. After several hours of talks, Britain's foreign secretary, David Lammy, said that the Europeans are "keen to continue ongoing discussions and negotiations with Iran." He said the Europeans were clear in talks in Geneva that Iran "cannot have a nuclear weapon." No other details were provided. Earlier Friday morning, Israel's military said it carried out strikes on 25 military and nuclear targets in Iran. The Israel Defense Forces said 60 jets were used in the strikes. An Iranian missile also hit the southern Israeli city of Be'er Sheva Friday morning. The week of war between Israel and Iran has killed at least 657 people, including 263 civilians, in Iran, the Washington-based group Health Rights Activist told the AP. At least 24 people in Israel have been killed, Israeli officials say. As tensions with Iran intensified, Israel continued its strikes in Gaza over the last day, with at least 42 people killed on Friday. The Hamas-run Ministry of Health in Gaza said 23 of the people killed were seeking humanitarian aid. No humanitarian aid has entered the Gaza Strip, where the UN has said the entire population faces the risk of starvation, for 48 hours.