As recent attacks on American positions in Iraq have shown, the Islamic Republic maintains a significant arsenal of rockets, which play an essential role in its military doctrine. And in typical fashion, the Iranian-made missiles that killed an American contractor on December 27 were fired by one of Tehran’s many proxy militias, which it has supplied amply with such weapons. The ayatollahs have also armed Hizballah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen with numerous missiles, some of them quite sophisticated. Their aim, writes Uzi Rubin, is to surround the Jewish state with a “ring of fire”:

At present, the Israeli heartland is threatened by Iranian-supplied rockets and missiles from the north (Lebanon) and the southwest (Gaza). [Reportedly], Tehran has [also] begun to supply its affiliated militias in Iraq with missiles that can reach Israel. . . . Iran can hit Israel with missiles from within its

 

own territory and has no need to base them in Iraq, but its proclaimed “no first strike” policy prevents it from threatening Israel directly unless it is first attacked by Israel. [However], Iranian missiles in Iraq—repainted and rebranded as “Iraqi-developed”—would not need the excuse of justified retaliation to be employed against Israel and would allow Tehran to maintain a smokescreen of deniability.

[In addition], there is already a covert Iranian missile force masquerading as a “Yemeni-developed” arsenal in Houthi-controlled Yemen, and it is directed against Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies. This arsenal has been used over the past four years to strike deep into Saudi Arabia, including eight attacks on the capital city of Riyadh. . . . The Iranians may now be striving to extend the capability of their missile force in Yemen to cover Israel, too.

Yemen lies southeast of Israel, a direction from which no strategic threat has been envisaged to date. Deployment of Israel-range ballistic and cruise missiles in Yemen would force Jerusalem to dilute its existing north- and southwestern-facing defenses in favor of a southeastern-facing defensive shield, or to invest heavily in additional early-warning and active-defense systems to close the gap.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”