Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor at POLITICO Europe.
Long before the Iron Dome and David’s Sling, over several weeks in January 1991, Iraq launched 42 Scud missiles at Israel, primarily targeting the coastal cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa.
Iraq’s then-President Saddam Hussein’s hope was to provoke, calculating Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir would stay true to his pugnacious character and retaliate, prompting Arab states to forsake the U.S.-led coalition to liberate Kuwait.
But a surprising thing happened. Shamir — never a man to shy from battle — unexpectedly heeded the pleas of allies, and Israel refrained from responding.
Now, some 30 years later, as the world waits to see how Israel will retaliate after Iran’s first-ever direct attack on the country, the question is: Will Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu match the uncharacteristic forbearance of his predecessor?
In order to convince Shamir, then-U.S. President George H. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker worked hard, arguing the coalition risked falling apart if Israel were to react. They also promised increased U.S. military aid to Israel, including more Patriot air-defense missiles.
But it wasn’t just American pleas and promises of aid that worked to restrain the Israeli leader. King Hussein of Jordan was crucial — much as his son, current monarch King Abdullah II, may now prove pivotal in containing the naturally bellicose Netanyahu, or at the very least help persuade him to respond in a symbolic, more measured manner.
Abdullah’s arguments will be similar to those of his father: that forbearance will benefit Israel, that restraint will be for the greater good of the entire region, and that retaliation will have a grave impact on Israel’s security.
And just as his father’s arguments were bolstered by the low casualties and minimal structural damage Israel suffered from Iraq’s Scud strikes, so too will Abdullah’s. There were no deaths from Iran’s attack on Israel at the weekend, and only minor damage to buildings on an Israeli airbase.
While this is all thanks to Israel’s advanced multi-layered air defense system — some parts of it truly tested for the first time — it’s also due to the crucial assistance of Western allies and Arab states alike.
Jordan not only joined Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates in sharing intelligence and radar information with the U.S., but it also actively helped shoot down explosive-laden drones heading toward Israel.
Despite Abdullah’s scathing public criticism of how Netanyahu has waged war against Hamas in Gaza, the Jordanian monarch didn’t hesitate to come to Israel’s defense. He scrambled his fighter jets to assist in the hastily mounted U.S.-led multinational operation to stop Iran’s missiles and drones from getting through.
“Some flying objects that entered our airspace last night were dealt with and confronted,” Jordan’s government said in a statement, adding that the country’s military “will confront anything that would expose the security and safety of the nation … to any danger or transgression by any party.”
This intervention carries considerable political risks for Abdullah — the Hashemite monarchy has clashed with Palestinians before. Abdullah was just eight years old when Jordan was plunged into a civil war in 1970, as his father and the Palestine Liberation Organization battled for control of the country. And today, around 3 million Palestinians live in Jordan, making up 20 percent of the population.
Thus, Abdullah — like other Arab leaders — will expect some gratitude from Bibi for helping to defend Israel. And their pleas for restraint are echoing arguments reportedly made by U.S. President Joe Biden, urging Netanyahu to take the win, as there’s more to gain by showing restraint.
Netanyahu and his predecessor Shamir bear some resemblances — martial backgrounds, staunch obduracy, and reputations for hewing to tough, no-compromise lines.
Born Yitzhak Yezernitsky in what is today’s Belarus, Shamir chose the Hebrew word for thorn for his surname when he arrived in Israel — and he certainly proved to be one in the side of U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz. Trying to win Shamir’s support for a Middle East peace plan, a Shultz aide once complained after an exasperating session: “He thinks that because nobody got up on the table and kicked his teeth in that we’re all happy, and everything’s OK.”
And regardless of Israel’s reliance on U.S. support to survive, he seldom budged — but that wasn’t the case in 1991. Despite famously urging security forces to “repel every attack and to amputate every hand that will be raised against us,” Shamir saw the logic behind holding back.
So, will the notoriously stubborn Netanyahu bend as well? Israeli officials have said there will be a retaliation. “We are looking ahead, we are considering our steps, and this launch of so many missiles, cruise missiles, and UAVs into the territory of the State of Israel will be met with a response,” Chief of the General Staff of Israel Herzi Halevi said Monday.
But in terms of domestic politics, Netanyahu is facing more challenges than his predecessor had confronted. Shamir had to watch his back for challenges from his chief rival within the Likud party, Ariel Sharon, whose star was already waning.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, sits atop a far more rambunctious coalition government. The ultranationalists and far-right religious figures, along with some in his Likud party, are baying for blood and for a direct attack on Iran. They argue that a failure to retaliate will only invite Tehran to try the same thing again, establishing a dangerous new normal.
“In our neighborhood, it will be irresponsible not to retaliate after such an unprecedented attack from Iran against Israel,” Danny Danon, a Likud lawmaker and former Israeli envoy to the U.N., told POLITICO. “Not to retaliate will bring yet another attack from Tehran.” He and others complain that once again Israel is helped when it is assaulted but that Western backing disappears when it wants to go on the attack, despite that being its best form of defense.
However, others within Netanyahu’s war and wider cabinets are urging restraint, as they see Iran’s attack as a golden opportunity for Israel to build a much more effective international coalition against the mullahs in Tehran. Halevi himself hinted at this in his remarks on Monday, saying the attack had “created new opportunities for cooperation in the Middle East.”
The question Israel is now highlighting, especially in conversations with European leaders and diplomats, is: What would this attack have looked like if Iran had nuclear weapons?
Israel wants there to be consequences for Iran. And the biggest consequence may well be a much tougher, stronger and more determined international coalition aimed at undermining the regime of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, preventing the development of weapons of mass destruction.
Shamir once said: “A man who goes forth to take the life of another whom he does not know must believe only one thing — that by his act he will change the course of history.” But on this occasion, it’s refraining from taking the life of another that might alter the arc of history.
