Cables From Diplomatic Frontlines - Biden's comments on Israeli response - and Israel's actual options for retaliation.

Biden’s comments.

• President Biden has made a number of statements on Israel vs Iran strikes.

• Biden announced that he would be opposed to Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and also attempted to dissuade Israel from striking Iranian and oil fields.

• Additionally, he called on Israel to respond with proportionality, following Iranian strikes (where some of the ballistic missiles hit near Mossad and air bases hosting F 35 fighter jets.)

• With respect to proportionality, that’s a tall order: since it would imply an Israeli strike that results in precisely zero casualties.

• Let us not forget that the primary reason why Iranian missile barrage in response to Nasrallah‘s assassination largely failed to cause any damage, was due to an Israeli advantage in advanced air-defense systems (like the Arrow-3 and David’s sling), and the US help in shooting the incoming missiles.

• It is therefore not Israel’s fault that its own defenses are far superior to those of Iran.

• Obviously, Iran would love to destroy a number of F-35s that it ostensibly targeted in this attack.

• And had it succeeded in doing so, there would by definition be no possibility of a proportional response - since Iran doesn’t have any advanced, stealthy aircraft.

• The closest thing to a proportional response would be the destruction of Iran’s entire Air Force.

• Secondly, even assuming that Iran even wanted to limit the damage, insisting on a proportional response, does nothing more than adding legitimacy to Iranian attacks.

• This by definition amounts to conceding the escalation dominance to an adversary.

• Iran gets a veto on the precise parameters of the confrontation.

• It gets to choose the degree and the type of war it can fight confident in the knowledge that Washington will call on Israel to forgo anything that is not strictly proportional.

• Thirdly, the US is signaling its lack of resolve and staying power in the Middle East.

• This can lead to Iranian miscalculation.

• They may assume (hopefully wrongly) that they have more leeway than they think they do.

• This could then lead to yet another cycle of Iranian attacks, that could eventually end up in the loss of U.S. lives.

• And beyond all that, this is just a really bad treatment of an ally…

• When attacked by a powerful force launching ballistic missiles all over the country, America’s ally should not be hearing insistence on a proportional response.

• There is a time and place for such appeals.

• An example of a legitimate need for proportionality is Israeli operations in Gaza – which we have criticized on the number of occasions.

• Or even Israel’s incursion in southern Lebanon.

• In both instances, Israel is conducting an operation in 1) a highly dense area with a huge number of civilian population, and 2) against anniversaries that are far less sophisticated than Iran.

• None of this is necessarily the case in the case of Iran.

• Proposed strikes so far (and those that can be afforded by Israel - doesn’t have unlimited munitions anyway) are mainly about targeting Iranian military/nuclear facilities.

• The likelihood of a huge number of civilian deaths is significantly less likely in this particular conflict.

• In addition, it’s clear that Netanyahu wants to appeal to the Iranian public (see his direct video appeal to the “Noble Persian People”).

• Moreover, Biden is months again, setting himself up for a trap.

• Because, if/when Israel doesn’t respond in a way that most people in Washington will consider as proportional (certainly by those in the media or those who have been calling for Biden to put pressure on Israel) the president of the U.S. will once again appear impotent in the Middle East.

• It will look like Biden’s appeals and calls do not matter at all.

• He calls on the leader of an allied state in the region to act proportionally, but that doesn’t happen.

• And, it’s not hard to predict that this is exactly what’s going to happen.

• In this case, it seems obvious that Biden prefers to be seen as a peace-loving dove over someone with an effect on the events and developments in the region.

• Of course, this may be his preference, but it does no service to the U.S, presidency, or perception of the US as a global superpower and a leader.

• Finally, it is a bit hypocritical for Biden to quickly distance himself from Israeli actions, but for his staffers to jump on the opportunity to exploit the opportunities and strategic opening created by the Israeli actions that have been criticized to date.

• Biden has repeatedly called for a cease-fire in Lebanon.

• But, as soon as Israel dealt a very decisive blow to Hezbollah, (making it clear that it’s organizational capacity has been severely degraded) American diplomats have now changed their tune, and want to seize the opportunity to get rid of Hezbollah as a kingmaker within Lebanon - pushing for the election of a new President in Lebanon (which Hezbollah essentially blocked.)

• (side note: and it turns out that contrary to Biden’s public pronouncements, in private, senior White House officials were actually offering support for the use of military force against Hezbollah.

• To be clear, this is a good objective to have.

• Lebanon is in a state of disarray and crisis - and to a large extent this is precisely because of the political arrangement: where a non-state de facto, terrorist organization enjoys veto on most important political decisions within the country.

• But a few weeks ago, this wasn’t even on the table.

• And yet, those in DC were calling on Israel to pull back and commit to a premature ceasefire.

• Had Netanyahu listened to these calls, such an opening would not have materialized.

• Also, it goes without saying that replacing Hezbollah, and pushing it out of Lebanon’s political life - and certainly from being able to influence major decision-making - is easier said than done.

• Not only does it require a full destruction of Hezbollah’s offensive military power, but there needs to be an alternative, legitimate political organization that will garner the support of the constituencies that have to date been supporting Hezbollah.

• In other words, there needs to be another institution/political movement/political party that will channel the Shiite sect of the Lebanese population into a more productive, political decision-making.

• Let’s not forget that Hezbollah was in the role of providing a lot of social services to the Lebanese Society.

• If the US is serious about this (and they should be) then they would need to show more generosity and willingness to get involved on the ground, and provide both material and diplomatic support to the new political force that is going to replace Hezbollah.

Realistic options for an Israeli retaliation.

• Looking at a potential Israeli response there are a number of options, and they broadly fall into these three categories: 1) Counterforce, 2) Counter-value, 3) Decapitation/potential Regime change.

• 1) Counterforce response.