Could Iran’s Attack on Israel Spark a Wider Conflict?

On Sunday, Iran launched a wide-scale missile attack on Israel, sparking concerns of further escalation in the Middle East and media dialogue.

American Reluctance: Writing for The Guardian (Lean Left bias), Esfandyar Batmanghelidj argues the attack exposes the limits of how deeply the U.S. would back Israel in the event of a wider conflict beyond its own recognized borders. Batmanghelidj noted how the Iranian state made it clear it did not want to trigger a war and that Israel’s next move could be moderated by American reluctance.

Paper Tiger: Writing for Financial Times (Center bias), Emile Hokayem argued that Iran’s attacks are likely useful for state-crafted propaganda but served little strategic purpose and could make Israel less “risk averse” with future maneuvers. Hokayem added that this could ultimately make matters worse for the Palestinians of Gaza by pushing “the war there down the global agenda just as calls for an immediate ceasefire and greater humanitarian access were gaining momentum.”

Laissez-Faire: Sean Durns of the Washington Examiner (Lean Right bias) that the U.S. should not obstruct Israel’s retaliation against Iran as it seeks to obtain nuclear weapons, “destroy Israel (and) vanquish the United States.” As several perspectives on the right have also done, Durns criticized the Biden administration for being too soft on Iran recently and argued this could embolden the Islamic Republic.