How much longer must the Palestinians and Lebanese die for Iran’s sins, Jesus-like?

In yesterday’s missile attack on Israel, which Iran shot off in “self-defense” (as it called it) of Gaza and Lebanon, one person was killed, a Palestinian in Palestinian territory, by a missile that wobbled off-course. 

Palestinian “Self-Defense”?

Never mind that Iran’s in-name-only fight for Palestine cannot be considered “self-defense” under the international rules of warfare, since Iran is Iran and Palestine is Palestine. These are Iran’s wars.

But even taking Iran’s claims at face value, its missile bombardment in April killed no Israeli soldier (or even Israeli civilian) and damaged no property or military installations. The attack severely injured a young Arab girl, exactly the sort of person Iran insincerely claimed to be championing.

Its missile bombardment yesterday was similarly feckless. No one was injured in Israel. The attack killed a Palestinian in the territories. 

The Palestinians must be so grateful to their Iranian saviors. 

Iran Doesn’t Care About the Palestinians or the Lebanese People 

The simple fact is that Iran’s decision to embed proxy armies in Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen – and thus putting those three territories under illegal military occupation — has nothing to do with the defense of Palestinians or Lebanese or Yemenites and everything to do with the defense of Iran, both physically and geopolitically. 

Physically: Hezbollah’s missiles in South Lebanon have served as a deterrent to Israel against attacking Iran. Not a deterrent against attacking Lebanon, since Israel has no beef with the Lebanese people, or even the legitimate Lebanese government, such as it is. Hezbollah and its missiles are there for the protection of Iran alone. 

Geopolitically: at the beginning of October 2023, Israel was on the verge of normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia, thus creating an anti-Iran alliance in the Middle East. When Iran’s proxy army invaded from Gaza, the ensuing war scuttled the alliance, at least temporarily, maybe permanently. The invasion served no Palestinian strategic purpose and had no benefit, and serious repercussions, for the Palestinian people. 

Why Would Iran Stop These Wars

Iran has no incentive to order an end to hostilities, since with every dead Palestinian, rapprochement between SA and Israel becomes less and less likely. Iran wants dead Palestinians. 

As noted earlier, Iran illegally occupies South Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen through proxy armies that answer to Iran alone. So when Iran attacks Israel from occupied Gaza or occupied Lebanon or occupied Yemen, why does Israel attack the innocent Lebanese, the innocent Gazans and the innocent Yemenites? 

In the case of Gaza, the logic is especially baffling, because Iran’s incentive in permitting the attack on Israel was to provoke reciprocal attacks against Gazans, which would inflame the world against Israel. That strategy has worked for Iran quite well, so why would more of the same ever incentivize Iran to release the hostages? 

To the contrary, attacks on Gaza make a hostage release less likely. 

The decimation of Gaza inevitably further radicalizes (and starves) surviving Palestinians, who will in the future join Iran’s army either out of true anger at Israel or to earn the only paycheck in town, or both. 

And, while a lesser issue here, Iran’s proxy army in Yemen has been blocking shipping lanes since last October. Bombing Yemen has been ineffectual, because the Yemenite suffering under Iranian occupation and the rule of Iran’s puppet government have no influence on Iran’s decision-making.

So if attacking innocent Gazans or Lebanese or Yemenite makes no sense, why not attack the real enemy? Why not pressure Iran, which has the authority to order the release of the hostages, and to order the cessation of Hezbollah missile attacks, and to order its Yemenite army to let shipping continue? Why didn’t Israel and America do this on October 7? 

This is not a call for Israel or the US to attack Iran, but rather a call for Israel to stop attacking civilians in Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen and for the US to stop supporting it. We continue to believe that Israel should put a plan on the table for a full peace, and to leave it there, permanently.

Instead, we’re saying this: If a negotiated ceasefire is impossible now and Israel must attack someone, why not attack the actual enemy, the generals giving the orders, rather than civilians living under Iranian occupation? We know that Iran’s armies hide behind civilians, but the net effect is that civilians are the ones who die.

Are We Missing Something? 

This idea has been so absent from public discourse that we thought there must be an excellent reason why it was obviously idiotic, but whenever any of us would research the issue, the answer seemed to be that a threat to Iran risked “escalation.” 

But wouldn’t a threat to Iran have exactly the opposite effect? If Iran understood that its failure to release the hostages in Gaza would result in the immediate decimation of its bridges and energy infrastructure, not to mention its nuclear facilities, wouldn’t that make it more like to influence Iran’s actions? We’re not saying it would work, just that perhaps the odds would increase from Zero

This is why it was so stunning to read Bret Stephens’ column this morning and to see this paragraph: 

Iran’s economy relies overwhelmingly on a vast and vulnerable network of pipelines, refineries and oil terminals, particularly on Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf. The administration can put the regime on notice that the only way it will save this infrastructure from immediate destruction is by ordering Hezbollah and the [Yemenite] Houthis to stand down and to pressure Hamas to release its Israeli hostages. Critics of a hardline approach will reply that it invites escalation. Yet for nearly four years, the administration’s diplomatic outreach to Tehran, along with its finely calibrated responses to Iranian aggression, has done nothing to deter it from striking us and our allies. Notice that the Iranians began asking for the nuclear negotiations they spurned for the past three years only once they started to fear that Trump might return to office. Bully regimes respond to the stick.

We disagree with the last two lines. The specter of a Trump administration had less to do with Iran’s international outreach than simple economic and public pressure. But the unpopularity of the Iranian regime, and a threat to turn out the lights throughout the country, would do more to influence its decision-making than killing more Gazans and Lebanese, or bombing more Yemenite fuel depots. 

Again, we are not advocating a bombing campaign in Iran or even the threat of one. If a ceasefire that ends the wars on all fronts can be negotiated, then let’s have peace instead. But if war is to continue, then Iran should no longer be permitted to sit on the sidelines and give the orders with no repercussions. 

^^^

This editorial is by Oblivioni Magazine does not necessarily reflect the views of its contributors. 

Image by mokhaladmusavi / Pixabay