GNITN - Special Edition

Israel At War – Day 194

Striking Iran’s Nuclear Plants

Israel Alone Will Make Security Decisions

This shouldn’t have been hard to figure out, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that they, and they alone will decide what to do next after Iran attacked them in this article from The Times Of Israel:

Following meetings with the British and German foreign ministers, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed at Wednesday’s cabinet meeting that Israel will make its own decisions and do whatever is necessary to protect itself, even if it is contrary to the advice offered by its allies.

British Foreign Secretary David Cameron and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock both arrived in Israel on Wednesday for a flying visit in the wake of Iran’s unprecedented attack on Israel overnight Saturday-Sunday, in which it launched some 350 attack drones and missiles at the country.

Britain and Germany are only two of the countries trying to tell Israel to either not strike back or to do so in a limited fashion:

Both Germany and the UK have urged Israel to show restraint in the aftermath of the attack, warning that any additional direct hostilities with Iran could send the Middle East spiraling into an all-out war. Israel, however, has vowed to retaliate against Iran, saying that it cannot be allowed to attack without facing repercussions.

Netanyahu responded this way with Cameron also giving his opinion:

Appearing to respectfully reject Baerbock’s and Cameron’s counsel, Netanyahu told the cabinet meeting that the two had “all kinds of suggestions and advice,” and while it was appreciated, Israel would nevertheless “make our own decisions, and the State of Israel will do everything necessary to defend itself.”

Acknowledging Israel’s right to make its own decisions, Cameron told the press in Israel on Wednesday that while it was clear there would be retaliation against Tehran, he hoped that it would be carried out “in a way that is smart as well as tough and also does as little as possible to escalate this conflict.”

Baerbock was more direct:

Germany’s Baerbock was more vocal in her opposition to Israel’s plan to strike back at Iran, but stressed that nevertheless, her country remains in full solidarity with Israel.

“Iran and its proxies such as Hezbollah or the Houthis must not be allowed to add fuel to the fire,” she said, adding that there would be consequences to the strike, as the European Union was working on imposing further sanctions against Tehran.

Nobody would benefit from hitting back at Iran, she said. “Not Israel’s security, not the many dozens of hostages still in the hands of Hamas, not the suffering population of Gaza, not the many people in Iran who are themselves suffering under the regime, and not the third countries in the region who simply want to live in peace.”

The Tiniest Invasion

According to another report from The Times Of Israel the President of Iran, while presiding over a parade for their Army said this about any response from Israel:

Ebrahim Raisi, the president of Iran, warned on Wednesday that the “tiniest invasion” by Israel would bring a “massive and harsh” response, as the region braces for a potential Israeli retaliation after Iran’s attack over the weekend.

The weekend attack, dubbed “Honest Promise” by Tehran, “brought down the glory of the Zionist regime,” Raisi said at an annual army parade near Tehran on Wednesday, in a speech addressed to the regular army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“This operation showed that our armed forces are ready,” said the president, as his chief naval officer announced he was beefing up security for Iranian commercial ships in the Red Sea as tensions in the vital maritime route persist.

What he left out was that Israel, along with other nations repelled this attack and as we see more and more reports of from that attack, Iran’s artillery was older and inaccurate. This may suggest that they aren’t as powerful as they say or they are holding out and keeping their best for their next attack. Regardless, this bravado could only be seen as a way to encourage the military that their leader supports them wholeheartedly. And we must recall that Israel said publicly that their response is meant to change the back and forth responses, an equation they say will change this thinking. Israel intends to hit Iran hard, something that implies taking out a major part of their abilities, whether it be their oil production, technologies or nuclear capacity.

Hamas Changes Their Mind

In what could be evidence that less hostages are still alive than currently believed, we read in an article from i24news.tv what the terrorist group is offering during hostage talks:

The Hamas terrorist group has reportedly changed its demands for a hostage and ceasefire deal.

According to reports from Barak Ravid of Axios, the terrorist group is now willing to release fewer than 20 hostages in exchange for a six-week truce.

Hamas's revised proposal comes with its own set of conditions. The group is seeking a higher number of Palestinian security prisoners to be released, including individuals with more serious charges.

Hamas has other demands as well:

Additionally, Hamas is calling for international guarantees to ensure Israel's compliance with the ceasefire agreement.

These guarantees would include a halt to Israeli military operations, the withdrawal of IDF forces from certain areas in the Gaza Strip, and the return of displaced Palestinians to their homes in the northern part of the enclave.

Israel doesn’t believe Hamas is interested in reaching an agreement:

Israeli officials have expressed skepticism about Hamas's latest offer, suggesting that the group's leadership may not be genuinely interested in reaching a compromise. One official cited "ridiculous excuses" provided by Hamas to justify the reduced number of hostages included in the deal.

Adding more credence to the thinking that more hostages are not alive, Hamas says this:

Hamas claims that some of the individuals listed as hostages are either deceased or not under its custody.

Moreover, Hamas has reportedly expanded its demands regarding the release of Palestinian prisoners, insisting on the liberation of individuals serving life sentences. The group has also linked the implementation of various phases of the agreement, complicating the negotiation process further.

Israeli officials feel Hamas has other reasons for making offers they know Israel won’t accept:

In response to Hamas's latest proposal, Israeli officials have criticized the group for its perceived lack of genuine commitment to achieving a ceasefire.

They accuse Hamas of stalling negotiations and hoping for a continuation of regional conflict rather than seeking a peaceful resolution.

Israel Must Strike Back

In an editorial from The Jerusalem Post we are told that Israel must show its strength in a counter strike on Iran:

In the volatile tapestry of Middle Eastern politics, the dawn of April 14, 2024, marked yet another escalation in regional tensions. Hundreds of Iranian drones, cruise, and ballistic missiles targeted Israel, punctuating a period of rising hostilities. However, the resilience of Israel's air defense and its strategic alliances in the region not only thwarted this assault but also signaled the durability of the Israel-Sunni regional alliance, as written on Sunday by our Senior Diplomatic Correspondent, Herb Keinon.

The attack underlines a critical reality: the alliance between Israel and several Sunni Arab nations—forged not out of affinity but as a bulwark against Tehran's aggressive postures—remains intact. Countries like the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, and, unofficially, Saudi Arabia view the threat from Iran as overshadowing other regional disagreements. This shared perspective on security issues, particularly Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional hegemony, underscores the necessity of a unified stance against common threats.

The piece lays out the high stakes of what happened:

The recent aerial aggression by Iran serves as a stark reminder of what is at stake. Iran’s actions were not just an attempt to destabilize Israel but also was aimed at fracturing the burgeoning alliances Israel has cultivated with Sunni Arab states. This strategy reflects Tehran’s desire to isolate Israel while diverting global attention from its own military capabilities and nuclear aspirations.

Putting Iran in its place will require a significant deal of planning and high risk:

Israel’s strategic response to such provocations needs to be as calculated as it is decisive. According to the Post’s Military Correspondent Yonah Jeremy Bob, the Israeli military’s potential use of advanced F-35 stealth fighters to penetrate deep into Iranian territory and target key nuclear sites is a testament to the high stakes involved. Such an operation would likely involve complex navigational challenges, possibly requiring flights over hostile or contested territories such as Syria, Iraq, or even the Persian Gulf.

The risk of doing this obvious, but so are the consequences of inaction:

The risks of escalation are real. Iran’s sophisticated air defenses and the potential for retaliation highlight the gamble inherent in military strikes. Yet, the cost of inaction might be higher, given Iran’s continued aggression and the progress in its nuclear program. Israel’s past reluctance to escalate conflicts could shift, considering the current threats that extend beyond its borders to include significant global implications.

Hitting other targets as I mentioned earlier could work, but taking out or seriously setting back Iran’s nuclear ability would send the proper message for the short term and longer. And it is predicted in the Bible which should make Christians perk up. Yes, we are living in Biblical times and we should pray accordingly.