Can You Top This? Iran Intended No Harm and No Damage.

When I was a child in the days before television, I rarely missed a popular radio show called "Can You Top This?" A panel of humorists would tell jokes, and the Palmolive laugh-meter (the Colgate-Palmolive company sponsored the show) would rate the audience's laughter to determine who the best humorist was during each weekly broadcast.

So, here's the knee-slapper of the decade reported as news by several major news outlets, including the New York Times. Iran had no intention of harming anyone or causing any real damage. The assortment of 350 drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles Iran launched at Israel last week was just a warning intended to harm no one nor damage anything. Now, one can understand the Ayatollah and his military spokesmen claiming that no harm was intended by Iran's failed massive missile and drone attack. After all, little harm was done. However, we do have a bit of a problem understanding why some American news media covered the Iranian nonsensical explanation for why their attack harmed hardly anyone and caused only minor damage. That was the objective, they say. According to Iranian spinmeisters, it was all a carefully planned and perfectly executed failure, a loud bark with no bite. Actually, it was the largest known drone attack ever launched. But no harm intended said Iran after it was determined that, by and large, no actual harm was done, except to a young Bedouin child, whose home was hit by the debris from an intercepted Iranian missile.

Iran even says it gave a 72-hour heads-up warning before attacking Israel. Nonsense, says the United States. Of course, if Iran was so determined not to harm anyone nor cause any damage, one wonders why the missiles they launched were armed and loaded with lethal explosives. All boom, but no bite?

What Iran really demonstrated was its ineptitude as well as the sophistication of Israeli defense systems. Iran, no doubt, has two objectives in claiming that the massive missile barrage it sent the Israelis' way was, essentially, merely a warning that intended very few injuries and little to no damage. They, of course, wanted to put the best possible face on a rather spectacular military failure, and they tried to dissuade Israel from counter-attacking. They failed at both objectives. Iran simply stated that their attack on Israel "exceeded expectations." With one child badly injured, should we assume that that one injury is what exceeded Iran's expectations?

Israel's response, however, has been both spectacular and measured. It was stunning. It demonstrated that Israel could hit anywhere within Iran by targeting a military base in Isfahan, nearly 1300 miles away, and measured because it didn't target Iran's substantial nuclear assembly complex located in Isfahan. I suspect tensions may now convert from a boil to a simmer. A war between Iran and Israel would make no sense. Iran would lose but prepare to fight another day, and Israel would still be left with all of the problems it confronts with the Palestinians on The West Bank and the well-armed Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Gaza, and as far away as Yemen.

Meanwhile, President Biden has left no doubt where the United States stands should the Israel-Iran dust-off get worse. We and the U.K. have instituted new sanctions against Iran designed to limit Iran's destabilizing military programs. Biden was remarkably candid and unequivocal. "Let it be clear to all those who enable or support Iran's attacks: The United States is committed to Israel's security," Biden warned. "We are committed to the security of our personnel and partners in the region. And we will not hesitate to take all necessary action to hold you (Iran) accountable."

These are not the words of a feeble, over-the-hill, fading President. Biden sent precisely the right message. An attack on Israel is an attack on an American ally, and we stand with our allies. 

The current round of tension stems from an Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus. The consulate, according to Israel, was the site of a meeting between senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers and representatives of Hezbollah who, reportedly, were meeting to plan military operations against Israel. If true, the consulate would be a legitimate target.

The sanctity of embassies and consulates applies only to the countries hosting them. If country A hosts country B's embassy and consulate, country A can only enter those buildings with country B's permission. That's uniformly recognized diplomatic protocol. That diplomatic protocol, however, does not apply to any other country, especially if the embassy or consulate is being used to plan aggression against a third nation. Suppose one nation is using its embassy or consulate in another nation to plot war or other aggression against a third nation. In that case, the plotting nation is not immune from attack simply because the plot being hatched is in a diplomatic building.

It is in neither country's interest to see a hot war between Israel and Iran, and it is hard to see which country is best positioned to prevail were such a conflagration to take place. Iran has about ten times the population of Israel, but Israel has demonstrated time and time again that when threatened, it can punch well above its weight.

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Iran far outweighs Israel with military manpower under arms by about four to one. Iran also has about four times the number of tanks, more than ten times the number of artillery pieces, and an estimated six to seven times the number of surface-to-air missile units. Israel, however, has more combat aircraft, attack submarines, and four times more satellites. Israel also has the most motivated citizen army in the world. Nearly all young Israeli men serve two years and eight months, and almost all young women serve at least two years upon graduation from high school. Its officer corps is considered among the best in the world. The Israeli Air Force is also rated among the best in the world. The tiny nation knows, of course, that it cannot afford to lose a major military confrontation.

In the past, Iran has not risked a great deal fighting Israel through proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Houthis in Yemen. Those days are over. Iran trains, finances, and arms Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Iran approves and probably plans any major initiatives against Israel by these proxies. Israel, it seems, is ready to hold Iran responsible for the actions of its surrogates. So should the rest of the world.

Please share our weekly commentary with others who would enjoy receiving

Of Thee I Sing 1776. Subscribe here: https://oftheeising1776.substack.com/subscribe.

Recent podcasts have featured my commentary on Liz Cheney’s new book, “Oath and Honor,” as well as my commentary regarding:

U.S. Representative Jim Jordan,

Brian Kemp and Those Republicans of Georgia,

The Trump Indictments,

The Fox Corp Settlement,

The CNN Trump Town Hall,

The Hunter Biden plea deal,

The New American Cult of Personality,

and my interviews with William Bratton, Retired Chief of Police, in New York City, Los Angeles, and Boston,

Rikki Klieman, Attorney, Network News Analyst, and best-selling author,

John Thoresen, Executive Director, Barbara Sinatra Children's Center,

Katherine Gehl, co-author of The Politics Industry and founder of the Institute for Political Innovation,

Jazz artist Ann Hampton Callaway,

Outlander author Diana Gabaldon,

AI Data Scientist Lawrence Kite,

Ryan Clancy, Chief Strategist of No Labels,

Senator Barbara Boxer,

Senator Joe Lieberman,

and Maryland Governor Larry Hogan. 

Become a Premium subscriber here: https://oftheeising1776.substack.com/subscribe.

Please consider our Of Thee I Sing 1776 Premium option. While my weekly column is always free, for just $5/month, you’ll also receive my annual ebook, “Essays For Our Time,” and my new Podcasts.

Subscribe here: https://oftheeising1776.substack.com/subscribe.

Novels by Hal Gershowitz