Iran attacks Israel: how dangerous is the situation?
Iran launched its first direct attack on Israel on Sunday. Tehran fired more than 300 drones and missiles but with the help of Israel's allies 99 percent of the projectiles were neutralised, according to the Israeli armed forces. Iran had promised to retaliate after seven Revolutionary Guards were killed in Damascus on 1 April. Europe's press takes very different views of the scope and consequences of the attack.
A controlled reaction to prevent a worse scenario
The Iranian attack is not the beginning of a war, says 24 Chasa:
“It can be described as a successful performance in which all the players, including the Western partners the US, the UK and France, were prepared for their roles so that everything remained under control and within the specified framework. The Iranians had to make a statement because after the attack on their consulate in Damascus, the entire political spectrum in Tehran categorically demanded a counter-attack. ... This was a controlled operation within a limited framework, carried out to prevent an even worse clash.”
The Nato of the Middle East works
The regional alliance against Tehran also played a decisive role in keeping the damage to a minimum, La Repubblica points out:
“If Israel succeeded in stopping the waves of Iranian bombs, it was not only due to the efficiency of its air defence. It was primarily a result of the alliance with the Sunni countries, which was brokered and guided by the United States. In the wake of the Abraham Accords another, much closer and more efficient network was woven, known as the Mead, or Middle East Air Defence. A top-secret pact that pools radar information and coordinates the deployment of warplanes and surface-to-air batteries of numerous Arab states linked to the Jewish state by the desire to thwart Tehran's missile power.”
Ukraine can only dream of such support
Israel's successful defensive action shows what united Western support can achieve, Les Echos comments:
“With its attack Tehran has also demonstrated the overwhelming technological superiority of the Jewish state and its main ally, the US. ... The almost total effectiveness of the Iron Dome can only give the Iranians food for thought and, incidentally, make the Ukrainians yearn to have it too. If only Kyiv had a small fraction of Israel's defence capabilities! Why doesn't it? Of course, the geography is not the same. Israel is only the size of a few French departments, whereas Ukraine is the size of France. Nevertheless, what happened on the night of April 13 proves that Russia is only strong because of our weaknesses.”
Israel will retaliate
Visão doesn't believe Israel will exercise restraint:
“It is ridiculous to believe that Israel will not respond to Tehran, despite appeals from Biden and London. The Israeli state has never placed its security, its sovereignty and its existence in the hands of others. And to ensure that it can 'never again' be wiped out, it has a powerful arsenal of nuclear weapons. Israel has long been looking for a reason to attack Iran directly for its role as financier and arms supplier to various terrorist groups, and now that moment has arrived. This third war in the world, in a dangerous region, between nations that are armed to the teeth, could have catastrophic consequences.”
Put Iran in its place
The Daily Telegraph criticises the international calls for Israel to show restraint:
“Once again Israel has been subjected to an onslaught only to be told not to retaliate, to follow a diplomatic route and, above all, not to make things worse in an already volatile region. Yet it is not Israel that has caused all of this trouble, but Iran. It is the ayatollahs in Tehran who bankrolled Hamas and encouraged its murderous pogrom last autumn. ... It is Iran who arms and funds Hezbollah in Lebanon. ... The only way to deal with Tehran is from a position of strength.”
A chance for more pressure on Hamas
Commenting on Facebook, political scientist Abbas Galliamov sees the possibility of new diplomatic leeway in the Gaza war:
“Israel could swap its position towards Iran for that of its allies with regard to the Gaza Strip. It could refrain from a direct strike against Iran and instead call on its partners to demand more clearly that Hamas relinquish power. Because so far they have remained vague, only calling for the release of the hostages in recent weeks. This has given Hamas hope that it will be able to remain in power in Gaza. Such illusions must be dispelled. Both the Islamists and ordinary Palestinians must realise that not only Israel, but the entire civilised world insists on their removal.”
The current leaders need the conflict
The problem is the lack of moderate leaders on either side, Politiken laments:
“The worrying thing is that the clerical regime in Iran and the Netanyahu government are a kind of eerie mirror image of each other. ... Netanyahu stands to lose power in the elections that will surely come after the Gaza war, and therefore has a cynical political and tactical interest in prolonging and perhaps extending the conflict. The clerical regime is also deeply unpopular and has an interest in the conflict deflecting the anger of the population away from the oppression and the dreadful economic situation in the country. ... Hopefully, a major war can still be avoided. But the danger will remain until both Iran and Israel have new leaders.”