Iranian Attack Sparks Israeli Debate Over Response

A report by Amal Chehadeh, English adaptation by Nadine Sassine 

In its fifth meeting within 48 hours, the Israeli War Cabinet faced new disagreements over the nature of the response to the Iranian attack.

 

The meetings coincide with international pressure, not only from the United States but also from Germany and countries that participated in the counter-response to the Iranian missile launches, including the UK.

The situation was a central topic during discussions between British Foreign Secretary David Cameron and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock in Tel Aviv. Both officials called for restraint and urged against attacking Iran, fearing the risk of escalating the conflict in the Middle East.

These pressures have led some Cabinet members to retract their agreement to launch an attack on Iran, believing that maintaining the alliance is of paramount importance.

As part of international efforts, messages were conveyed to Tel Aviv, emphasizing intense international efforts to impose new sanctions on Iran. 

These sanctions, coordinated between Washington and G7 leaders, would be harsher than any military attack, as they would cut off funds used for Iran’s military and nuclear development and its support for Hezbollah and Hamas.

Israelis are also considering economic sanctions. Senior officials proposed deducting billions of shekels from Iran's share as compensation for the costs of the strike against Israel, based on the profits of the Katzan company, established in 1968 during the Shah's reign as part of the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline project.

Iran had filed a lawsuit in the Swiss Supreme Court, demanding Israel pay more than one billion dollars for its share in the company. 

However, Israel rejected the demand, leaving the legal case unresolved.

Amid uncertainty surrounding potential Israeli retaliation and developments in Gaza and along the border with Lebanon, a poll showed that 74% of Israelis opposed any attack that might undermine Israel's security alliance. 

Additionally, 52% considered that such a response would not be worthwhile.