The powder keg in the Middle East was rekindled, and Iran unleashed a powerful fist, firing more than 200 drones and 150 missiles at Israel overnight in an attempt to shock its adversary. Israel quickly activated the wartime mechanism, and the Iron Dome system, in conjunction with American and British high technology, successfully blocked most of the attacks, leaving only a small trace. However, the storm of Israel's counterattack, which the world waited with bated breath, did not come as scheduled, and for a time triggered an in-depth discussion in the international community: What made Israel, a country known for its tough response, choose to stand still at the critical moment?
A delicate balance under the US side's containment
At present, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is in a white-hot stage, and the United States, as a key ally of Israel, is facing an unprecedented strategic choice. The aid plan for Ukraine has been blocked, and divisions within Congress have constrained the United States' intervention in global hot spots. In the face of the escalation of contradictions between Israel and Iran, the two giants in the Middle East, it is difficult for the United States to sit idly by, but it also has to take into account the domestic political trend and international strategic layout. U.S. President Joe Biden stepped in directly, quietly quelling Israel's impending retaliation through a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The pressure of the United States and the realistic consideration of its Middle East policy have become an important factor in Israel's temporary reluctance to swallow its anger.
A rational weighing of Israeli damage assessments under the Iranian offensive
While Iran's massive attack may seem menacing, the actual damage caused by Israel's tight defenses is minimal. The efficient interception of the Iron Dome system, coupled with the support of air defense technology provided by the United States and Britain, ensures the security of Israel's critical infrastructure. Iranian missiles caused only minor damage to an air base in southern Israel and did not affect its normal operation; In the face of such tactical setbacks, Israel has carefully assessed the costs and benefits of retaliation and has not seen the need for a new round of fighting.
Strategic choices under the risk of multi-front operations
At the same time, Israel has had to take into account the multiple security threats it faces. The Hamas organization in southern Gaza has always been like a sword of Damocles hanging over its head, threatening Israel's secure borders at all times. Israel understands that if it becomes involved in a full-scale conflict with Iran, it is very likely that Hamas will take the opportunity to launch an attack, creating a grim situation of fighting on two fronts. For this reason, Israel has decided to focus on securing its borders and eliminating Hamas's hidden dangers, rather than immediately confronting Iran head-on.
Rational reflection and opportunities for peace behind the conflict
Recalling the trigger for this incident, Israel's earlier strike on the Iranian consulate in Syria, Iran's response was partly a response to this provocation. It is worth noting that, despite the saber-rattling on both sides, both sides ultimately opted for relative restraint and avoided the situation from spiraling out of control. This reflects the fact that, under the ideas of the 19th-century military theorist Kelasevitz, modern countries are increasingly aware that the essence of war is an extension of political means when dealing with conflicts, and timely restraint and the achievement of limited goals can help prevent the unwarranted expansion of war.