Israel-Iran conflict: will the US intervene?
"Maybe, maybe not," said US President Donald Trump about a possible military attack by the US on Iran. At the same time, however, he also announced that something big would happen within a week. While Trump remains vague on the question of whether his country will go to war, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has threatened the US in the event of intervention. The media assesses the situation.
Netanyahu's gamble seems to be paying off
The Israeli prime minister is apparently waiting for the US to intervene militarily, Jutarnji list surmises:
“Trump has displayed a complete lack of understanding of the geopolitical situation: after Israel decided autonomously to attack Iran, he initially backpedalled, then offered support when he saw the possibility of victory. ... Netanyahu is one of the statesmen who has seen through [Trump] and calculated that this would happen. You can bet that Netanyahu has not even considered ending the attacks, confident that his calculation will pay off and that the US will ultimately not only threaten Iran with attacks, but perhaps actually attack it.”
This war is very different to that in Gaza
Writing in El Pais, Israeli writer Etgar Keret sees a big difference between Israel's two wars:
“These Iranian missiles serve to remind me that, unlike the unnecessary and brutal war that Netanyahu insists on pointlessly prolonging in Gaza, there are other wars against real and powerful enemies that pose a genuine threat to our existence; and that in these enemy states there are millions of innocent people who are also listening, terrified, to explosions going off right next to their homes. So here we sit, huddled in front of our front door, a man, a woman and our rabbit, all three of us hoping that we can win the one war ... and finally end the other.”
Only America can destroy the nuclear programme
Israel is dependent on Washington's military strength, Webcafé points out:
“In recent years the Israeli army has been constantly deployed and has clearly demonstrated its ability to wage protracted military conflicts on several fronts simultaneously. However, these conflicts were asymmetrical, directed against non-state actors. ... A conflict with Iran, a country with a population of 90 million, has a different dimension and requires far more resources. ... Israel has reached the limits of its ability to inflict serious damage on Iran's nuclear programme without sending in troops. The only remaining option for permanently destroying the nuclear facilities buried deep underground is missiles that only the US Armed Forces possess.”
War as an dehumanising spectacle
The human element is increasingly missing in the media's war coverage, Phileleftheros laments:
“Each side conveys its own version of the truth by cultivating its own audience. And the human element is increasingly lacking in the images that are broadcast. It's as if there were no dead, as if people were not being displaced. Israel and Iran are firing missiles at each other, but the dominant image is a kind of fireworks display. And in Gaza we mainly saw rubble, as if it were a film set. ... The absence of the human element from images of war makes it easier for the warlords to cultivate whatever beliefs they want to convey. ... War is consumed just like any other spectacle.”