| Listen to our audio presentation: History of Russia |
In the aftermath of a missile attack by Iran on Israel, most Israelis oppose a retaliatory strike that could compromise the nation’s security alliances, according to a Hebrew University survey. The respondents’ stance offers an insightful view on the preference for diplomacy over military action amidst geopolitical tensions and reflects considerations on the broader consequences of such backlash.
Earlier, Iran launched over 300 missiles and drones against Israel under retaliation motives. The United States, alongside other allies, intervened, leading to a successful interception of most of these threats. Despite the allies’ urge for Israel not to counterstrike, the Israeli leadership maintains its vow to retaliate.
The results of the survey conducted over two days (April 14th and 15th), revealed that 74% of respondents opposed a counterstrike that could potentially jeopardize Israel’s security alliances with its allies. The majority also believe that Israel should adapt to the political and military demands from its allies to assure a sustainable defense system.
Delving further, it emerged that slightly over half (56%) of the respondents held the belief that Israel should comply positively to allies’ demands. 32% were undecided, while a minor proportion disagreed. These findings hint towards a substantial preference for international cooperation in maintaining national security.
The survey also reported that the majority (59%) believe that U.S.’s assistance in warding off the Iranian attack necessitates Israel’s alignment with Washington in future security undertakings.
Meanwhile, the United States announced its intentions to impose fresh sanctions on Iran, an exigent reflection of its commitment to retaliate against Iran in the economic sphere. The imposed sanctions are projected to target Iran’s missile and drone program, amplifying the economic pressure on the Iranian regime.
Notwithstanding, some critics have accused the Biden administration of not implementing sufficient measures to curb Iran’s aggression. The critics argue that the administration has been rather soft in its dealings with Iran, including the release of some $6 billion in Iranian oil revenue as part of a hostage swap deal earlier in the year.
Paralleling this perspective from the U.S., Iran’s chargé d’affaires in London, Seyed Mehdi Hosseini Matin, warns that Iran will administer a more severe, immediate response without prior warning, to any further attacks from Israel. Matin argued verily against escalating the situation to an extensive war across the Middle East.
Worth noting is Iran’s recent show of military prowess, characterized by threats to attack Israel using weapons it has “not used before.” These threats are underpinned by Iran’s collaboration with Russia, from whom it is reportedly amassing a terrifying arsenal, including anti-aircraft launchers and fighter jets.
The escalation of the tension between Israel and Iran continues to worry the international community, sparking fears of a wider conflict in the Middle East.
Information Box:
1. The 1,466 men and women surveyed in the Hebrew University poll represent a mixed demographic of adult Israelis, both Jews and Arabs. The margin of error in the poll data is 4.2 percentage points.
2. Only a handful of missiles from Iran’s attack reached Israel; 99% were intercepted thanks to an organized air defense shield led by the United States and involving allies.
3. This Iranian attack comes as retaliation for an April 1 airstrike in Damascus, Iran attributed blame to Israel for the attack which killed two of its army generals and other officers.
4. Iran negotiation with Russia appears to provide a military boost for the Islamic Republic who issued vague threats of using previously unseen weaponry in future conflicts.
References:
1. Times of Israel
2. Axios
3. The Guardian
4. New York Post