On Monday morning, Israel sent Iran a strategic message that echoed far beyond the borders of the Middle East: it acts according to its own independent interests.
It is true that US President Donald Trump said in several interviews on Sunday evening that he did not want Israel to act. It is also true that the American pressure on Israel to restrain itself was real. And yet, Israel did what it believed it needed to do and what it determined was in its security interests. While this may appear to be a direct challenge to Washington and the president’s policy it is more likely that this was a carefully coordinated move: America remains outside this round of fighting, while Iran learns that Israel is capable of acting – and willing to act – even without explicit American backing.
Technically speaking it is important to keep in mind that Israel would not be able to carry out a strike against Iran with the Americans knowing. The American military is deeply embedded within IDF bases today and US Central Command is deployed heavily across the region. Planes that take off from Israel and fly to Iran are going to be seen by the Americans.
But more important is the message that the strike sends Iran and it is critical because, over recent months, the regime has been engaged in a clear strategy: buy time, drag out the negotiations and conduct them largely for appearances’ sake.
While diplomats worked to reach an agreement that would extend the ceasefire, Iran continued to spread instability throughout the region. It attacked the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait, including the strike on its airport several days ago, an incident that was nearly forgotten amid the never-ending news cycle. Iran was playing America and was exploiting Trump’s desire to secure a deal to buy time, rearm, and expand its influence.
Then came yesterday.
After weeks of coming under Hezbollah missile fire including almost daily casualties from drone attacks, Israel decided to bomb Beirut. The Iranians used that attack to respond by firing a salvo of missiles at Israel. Its rationale was simple – it wants to exert its influence over Lebanon and protect its proxy, Hezbollah. The regime believed that Trump would restrain Israel and that Iran would once again demonstrate that it is the one setting the rules in the Middle East.
That is why it would be a mistake to view Iran’s first missile attack solely as a military event. It was a strategic declaration by Iran which was trying to show that it has the power to determine what happens across the Middle East, including Lebanon. This is not the behaviour of a regime preparing to sign an agreement or make concessions. It is the behaviour of an adversary that feels immune, that believes its position is secure, and that America is so determined to avoid escalation that it will do almost anything to prevent another round of conflict.
That is why Israel had no choice but to retaliate. It needed to teach Iran a different lesson.
While Trump publicly called for restraint, Israel showed that its security does not depend on external approval. An “American green light” is not always required for the IDF, and even if some coordination took place behind the scenes, the outward appearance is one of Israeli independence – and that, in itself, strengthens deterrence.
It is possible that this is exactly what was agreed upon quietly between Israel and the U.S. America has an interest in ensuring that Iran understands that the equation has changed and that negotiations cannot be dragged out indefinitely. Iran needed to learn that there is a price to be paid for exploiting Trump’s desire to reach an agreement.
In that sense, the new equation may actually serve Trump’s interests. He can tell the Iranians that he is trying to reach a deal, but that if they refuse to compromise, he cannot control Israel. If the ayatollahs want a deal, he will be able to tell them, they will need to do it now.
The question that remains is whether Tehran will draw the right conclusions. Will the regime understand that its strategy of delaying has reached its limits? Will it recognise that operating proxies, and issuing threats from afar no longer provide the protection they once did?
Or are we headed for yet another round – more missiles, more airstrikes and more attempts to secure a fictitious ceasefire that will only allow Iran to rebuild and continue back along the same path?
Either way, Israel made one thing unmistakably clear: it has no intention of waiting for an answer.
Yaakov Katz is a co-founder of the MEAD Forum, a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, and former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post. His latest book (with Amir Bohbot), While Israel Slept, is a bestseller in the United States
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.