International newspapers and websites highlighted the Israeli threat to respond to Iran, and the repercussions of such a step on the global economy, in addition to the damage incurred by Israel as a result of the Iranian missile attack.
A report in the Financial Times focused on the repercussions of Israel targeting Iran’s oil facilities, and stated, “The realization of this possibility, which was circulated in media reports, carries great risks that threaten global energy supplies.”
Experts warn – according to the newspaper – of a step that risks an increase in the prices of the most important commodity in the world, which may be directly reflected in increased inflation and damage to the global economy.
For its part, the New York Times wrote that the rare appearance of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – as he described it – indicates the importance of the timing in which Iran and Israel appear “more willing to risk a direct conflict.”
The newspaper’s report notes that Khamenei addressed people despite the increasing security risks to his life, and he usually does so in exceptional circumstances related to national security, the most recent of which was the assassination of Qassem Soleimani in 2020.
Regarding the American position on the possible Israeli response, the Wall Street Journal believed that any unilateral decision would risk bringing the administration of US President Joe Biden into a regional conflict, recalling that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly ignored the American administration, and therefore the Israeli decision came as a surprise on many occasions. .
Changing conflict dynamics
The Washington Post highlighted the damage caused by the Iranian missile attack on Israel, and stated that the analysis of several video clips that documented the attack “raises questions about the true extent of the damage to Israeli military bases.”
The newspaper says, based on the results of the analysis of the video clips, “Iran has achieved greater success in penetrating Israel’s defenses compared to the attack last April.”
In the same context, the Gero Salem Post newspaper wrote that after analyzing the available data regarding the Iranian attack, it became clear that confronting it cost Israel more than twice what Iran might have spent on the missiles it launched.
According to the newspaper, this conclusion applies to the rule that “defense is more expensive than attack, as interceptor missiles are often more expensive than offensive missiles.”
On the other hand, The Guardian newspaper published an article that ruled out a change in the basic dynamics of the conflict in the Middle East “after the tactical successes achieved by Israel, including the assassination of Hezbollah leaders.”
The article recalls Netanyahu’s talk about changing the balance of power in the region, then comments, “The Iranian attack was a sign of the high costs and risks to Israel the more escalation increases.”
