What Does the US Strike on Iran Mean for Israel?

Live on Bloomberg TV
CC-Transcript
00:00Walk us through how the Israeli public has responded to the US military intervention over the weekend. Good morning, Joumanna. Yes, well, this was a dramatic weekend, one of historic proportions in Israel as elsewhere in the region and in the world, especially countries that have a stake in this part of the world. And Israelis, I would say this is to judge by everything from television panelists to the people I've shared bomb shelters with during the Iranian retaliatory missile attacks appear to be relieved, jubilant, astonished at the fact that the world's great power, the United States, did intervene finally, and using its firepower for what appears to have been a knockout blow, at least as described by President Trump and by his staff to the Iranian nuclear program. Of course, the question is whether it was a knockout blow. And I think what you're going to see today is the discourse shifting to one of BDA. That's the refrain you'll be hearing a lot of battle damage assessments, whether indeed it was a knockout blow, whether indeed the damage was enough to end any credible work at those sites and effectively allow Israel to pack up and say that the war is over. The main threat, what it's described as the main threat to its existence going back decades has now been dealt with conclusively. I thought it was interesting. The Israeli prime minister gave a televised address yesterday where he said Israel is very close to reaching goals in Iran but will also avoid a war of attrition. How should we be reading those comments, Dan? Well, it's worth keeping in mind that the two countries are separated by something like a thousand miles of territory. I think three international borders, Iran is something like 70 times the size of Israel. There really is an asymmetry here in terms of disposition, geography, military standing. So for all the virtuosity of Israeli forces here, I don't think they could afford to sustain fighting in the long run, something akin to what we've seen in the last 20 months in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, which are neighboring countries or neighboring territories. So the Israelis are looking logistically at this. I think they're also signaling to the American public, those Americans who are wondering whether this is a repeat of 2003 in Iraq, that this was a one time deal for Israel and for the United States, that perhaps the US role has begun and ended with this airstrike and that Israel, the country most involved in this, the U.S. ally, is really also trying to wrap things up as soon as it believes that its goals have been achieved and those goals may be achieved very soon.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

16 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Russia's former president says countries are lining up to give Iran their nukes. Analysts are calling his bluff.

A top Putin aide and Russia's former president slammed the US for its strikes on Iran's nuclear site. Among other claims, Dmitry Medvedev said other countries are ready to give their nukes to Iran. Nuclear analysts told BI that Medvedev's claim is logistically and politically ridiculous. Analysts are casting doubt on Russia's former president's claim that "a number of countries" were considering supplying nuclear warheads to Iran after the Pentagon's salvo of bunker-buster strikes there. Dmitry Medvedev, who was president from 2008 to 2012 and is a top aide to Russian leader Vladimir Putin, didn't specify which countries he was referring to in his Telegram post on Sunday. In his post, he downplayed the damage dealt to Iran's vital nuclear sites. As news of the strikes broke on Saturday, the Pentagon was careful to say that it was still assessing the destruction caused by the 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs and multiple Tomahawk missiles it fired at Iran's nuclear sites. Medvedev wrote that the strikes had "entangled" the US in a new conflict. "A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads," he added. Nuclear weapons analysts speaking to Business Insider said they doubted that Medvedev's statement on such transfers is credible. "It's impossible in practice because nuclear weapons are not like a bomb or just something you can carry in a suitcase," said Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher in the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research's weapons of mass destruction program. Nuclear warheads come as an entire system, with people who need to be trained to keep and service them safely, as well as maintenance facilities and equipment. Even tactical nukes, which are more portable and produce a smaller blast, need high-level storage, Podvig added. "Unless you create a nuclear program or almost a nuclear program in the country, there is no way to just give your nuclear weapons to them," he said. Simply giving such a warhead to another country would break the first article of the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Russia and China have signed. Podvig said that in Europe, where the US stations nuclear weapons, the warheads are in American custody. The same can be said of Russia's nuclear weapons in Belarus. "I don't see this being done technically," Podvig said. Politically, Medvedev could likely only be referring to three countries, said Adam Lowther, a cofounder and the vice president of research at the Ohio-registered think tank National Institute for Deterrence Studies. North Korea, China, and Russia are the only nuclear-armed states considered adversaries or rivals to the US. And Lowther said all three know that supplying Iran with nuclear weapons, even just as a deterrent, would risk intense escalation from the US and Israel. "When you give somebody a nuclear weapon, and they can use it, you can't guarantee how they're going to use it," Lowther said. He added that with Tel Aviv and Washington so focused on preventing Iran from fielding nuclear weapons, Tehran would likely only have two choices if it does receive a warhead: Use the bomb or lose it. And if Iran detonates a gifted nuke, Lowther added, American forensics would easily be able to trace the fissile material and bomb design to identify where the weapon originated. "Then that country would be on the US' hit list," Lowther said. Medvedev is known to make bold, hawkish statements toward Ukraine and the US since the outset of the full-scale Russian invasion. He serves as the deputy chairman — second in rank to Putin — of the Kremlin's security council. His rhetoric has often run parallel to the Kremlin's nuclear threats, repeatedly issued as warnings to the West over military aid to Ukraine. Moscow, however, has consistently not followed through with those threats, even when the US escalated its level of assistance to Kyiv. Lowther said he believes Medvedev's statement was a play against Ukraine, a bid to reduce the West's willingness to help Kyiv. "The Russians say: 'You know what? You give the Ukrainians these weapons? Well, we can give the Iranians weapons as well,'" he said. The Israel Defense Forces declined to comment on Medvedev's remarks. The White House and US State Department did not respond to requests for comment sent outside regular business hours by BI. Read the original article on Business Insider

San Francisco Chronicle​

16 minutes ago

• San Francisco Chronicle​

NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.

Bloomberg

22 minutes ago

• Bloomberg

What's Next After the Initial Fallout from US Strikes on Iran

What's next? The unprecedented US airstrikes on Iran have set traders and governments worldwide on edge, as the Islamic Republic warns of retaliation and Israel shows no sign of letting up in its assault. Asian currencies and stocks fell, European stock futures declined while oil advanced, then erased gains, after Washington struck Iran's nuclear sites over the weekend. China and Pakistan were quick to condemn — even though China hasn't yet offered substantial assistance to Tehran besides rhetorical support and Pakistan is at the same time taking steps to build stronger ties with the White House. The US State Department issued a ' Worldwide Caution ' alert for Americans. More critically, President Donald Trump's decision to deploy bunker-busting bombs — in Washington's first direct military action against Iran after decades of hostility — has pushed the Middle East into uncharted territory. Did the end justify the means? While the US attacks have set back Iran's nuclear ambitions and dealt its clerical regime a humiliating blow, the program hasn't been completely destroyed. The move may ultimately lead Tehran to end international monitoring of its nuclear program and consider going ahead to develop a bomb. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hasn't been seen in public in 11 days but remains in control. Even as diplomatic allies Russia and China have stayed on the sidelines and its network of armed proxies in the region remains weakened, Tehran still has ways to inflict pain on the US as it plans its retaliation. Two supertankers, each capable of hauling about 2 million barrels of crude, U-turned in the Strait of Hormuz after the US airstrikes on Iran raised the risk of a response that would ensnare commercial shipping in the region, according to vessel tracking data compiled by Bloomberg. The two empty freighters then sailed south, away from the mouth of the Persian Gulf. The turning oil carriers offer the first signs of re-routing, something that oil traders will scrutinize. Any disruption to traffic through the strait, a major artery for global crude and natural gas, raises the specter of a spike in energy prices. That's bad news for Asia, which buys more than four-fifths of all the crude produced in the Middle East, 90% of which goes through the Strait of Hormuz.