Podcasts > The Ben Shapiro Show > UNPRECEDENTED: Iran Launches MASSIVE Attack on Israel

UNPRECEDENTED: Iran Launches MASSIVE Attack on Israel

By Ben Shapiro

The latest episode of The Ben Shapiro Show covers the recent Iranian missile and drone attacks on Israel and Israel's defensive response. Shapiro reports details on the scope of the surprise attacks orchestrated by Iran, and Israel's ability to intercept nearly all incoming threats.

The episode discusses the Biden administration's role in greenlighting a limited assault on Israel as a strategy to avoid escalation. It also examines the calls for Israel to retaliate against Iran, the prospects of various military options, and the importance of strong Israeli defense for U.S. interests in the region. Additionally, Shapiro explores the bipartisan push for additional U.S. aid to resupply Israel's defenses and hold Iran accountable for the attacks.

Listen to the original

UNPRECEDENTED: Iran Launches MASSIVE Attack on Israel

This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Apr 15, 2024 episode of the The Ben Shapiro Show

Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.

UNPRECEDENTED: Iran Launches MASSIVE Attack on Israel

1-Page Summary

Iranian Attacks on Israel and Israel's Defense

Barrage of attacks orchestrated by Iran

Ben Shapiro reported that Israel faced a massive attack from Iran involving 300 cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and drones. Israel's defense systems were able to intercept 99% of these threats, averting disaster.

Biden greenlighting limited attack

Reports suggest the Biden administration allowed Iran's limited assault on Israel as a strategy to avoid further escalation, a move critiqued by figures like Rubio and Trump.

Calls for Israeli restraint

Shapiro relayed commentary implying the Biden administration urged Israel not to retaliate against the Iranian attack, drawing criticism for potentially failing to resolve the conflict effectively.

Aid to Israel in response

Bipartisan push for aid

Lawmakers like Scalise, Graham, and Speaker Johnson indicated bipartisan efforts to provide additional military aid to resupply Israel's defenses and hold Iran accountable, though details remain undecided.

Importance for US interests

Shapiro underscored a strong Israeli defense serves US geopolitical interests by negating threats from groups like Hamas and Hezbollah while bolstering the Abraham Accords.

Prospects for Israeli retaliation

Military options

Gantz suggested Israel will choose the right time and method to respond. Possible options include strikes on Iranian targets like oil refineries or Natanz nuclear facilities, or preemptively targeting Hezbollah's missile threats - though concerns exist over deterrent effects and US support.

Finishing Gaza operations first

Shapiro indicated Israel's immediate focus is likely completing operations against Hamas strongholds in Gaza's Rafah before pursuing larger strategies like an accord with Saudi Arabia to counter Iran.

1-Page Summary

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Ben Shapiro is a conservative political commentator known for his views on Israel and the Middle East. Rubio and Trump are prominent Republican politicians in the United States. Scalise and Graham are also Republican lawmakers, with Scalise being the House Minority Whip. Speaker Johnson could be a reference to a Speaker of the House in the U.S. Congress. Gantz is an Israeli politician and former Chief of General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces.
  • The Iranian attacks on Israel involved a significant number of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and drones. Israel's defense systems successfully intercepted 99% of these threats, preventing widespread damage. The attacks were seen as a serious escalation in tensions between Iran and Israel, prompting discussions on potential responses and implications for regional stability. The Biden administration's response to these attacks, including considerations of allowing a limited assault, sparked debate and criticism from various political figures.
  • The Biden administration's decision to allow Iran's limited assault on Israel was seen as a strategic move to prevent further escalation in the region. This approach aimed to balance deterrence against Iran while avoiding a broader conflict. Critics like Rubio and Trump questioned the effectiveness of this strategy, suggesting it could embolden Iran and undermine Israel's security. The administration's focus on de-escalation and diplomatic solutions reflects a complex balancing act in managing the volatile situation in the Middle East.
  • The Abraham Accords are a series of agreements normalizing diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. These accords mark a significant shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics by fostering peace and cooperation between Israel and its Arab neighbors. They aim to enhance regional stability, promote economic growth, and counter shared threats, such as Iran's influence in the region. The accords have been praised for their potential to reshape alliances in the Middle East and open up new opportunities for cooperation in various fields, including security, technology, and trade.
  • Israel's ongoing operations against Hamas in Gaza are part of a broader strategy to address security threats in the region. By targeting Hamas strongholds in Gaza, Israel aims to weaken the group's capabilities and reduce the immediate threat it poses. These operations may also be linked to larger geopolitical goals, such as forming alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia to counter shared adversaries like Iran. The completion of operations in Gaza could potentially pave the way for Israel to focus on broader strategies and diplomatic initiatives in the region.

Counterarguments

  • The interception of 99% of threats by Israel's defense systems, while impressive, raises questions about the 1% that were not intercepted and the potential damage they could have caused.
  • The Biden administration's decision to allow a limited assault could be seen as undermining Israel's sovereignty and right to self-defense.
  • Urging restraint on Israel's part might be criticized as an unrealistic expectation in the face of direct aggression, potentially emboldening Iran.
  • While bipartisan efforts to aid Israel are mentioned, there could be debate over the extent and conditions of such aid, with some arguing for more stringent oversight or different forms of support.
  • The assertion that a strong Israeli defense serves US geopolitical interests might be contested by those who believe that US interests could also be served through diplomatic efforts and de-escalation of tensions.
  • The idea of Israel choosing the right time and method to respond could be criticized as potentially leading to an endless cycle of retaliation and escalation.
  • The potential Israeli military options for retaliation might be seen as escalating the conflict further and risking civilian lives, with some advocating for a more measured and diplomatic approach.
  • Focusing on operations in Gaza could be criticized for not addressing the broader issues with Iran, potentially allowing tensions to simmer and escalate in other areas.

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
UNPRECEDENTED: Iran Launches MASSIVE Attack on Israel

Iranian Attacks on Israel and Israel's Defense

The complex dynamics between Iran and Israel have been the focus of international attention following recent events orchestrated by Iran, which have invited discussions about Israel's right to self-defense and the Biden administration's involvement.

Overview of attacks from Iran and interception by Israel and allies

Iran saw an opening with the Biden administration following Israel's engagement in Syria, which led to the demise of General Mohammad Reza Zayedi. Uncertain about the extent of a possible Israeli retaliation, Iran proceeded to direct a substantial offensive towards Israel.

Ben Shapiro reported that Israel was targeted with a barrage of 300 cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and drones orchestrated by Iran, with minor involvement from Yemen and limited activity from Hezbollah. Notable events included a "170 drone attack" and launches comprising "120 ballistic missiles and some 30 to 60 cruise missiles." Remarkably, Israel's comprehensive defense systems, including Arrow 3, Arrow 2, David's Sling, and Iron Dome, displayed an astounding 99% success rate in intercepting these threats, as highlighted by Shapiro and corroborated by CNN’s Clarissa Ward. The efficient Israeli defense resulted in the neutralization of almost all ordinance before reaching Israeli territory.

Biden greenlighting limited Iranian attack to avoid escalation

Reports suggest that the United States, under President Biden's leadership, tacitly authorized a limited military assault by Iran against Israel. This decision was communicated through Ankara after being advised of Iran's planned operation against Israel. The Biden administration's strategy, as critiqued by Shapiro and Senator Marco Rubio, seems to aim at avoiding a significan ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Iranian Attacks on Israel and Israel's Defense

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • General Mohammad Reza Zayedi was a high-ranking Iranian military official. His demise, in this context, indicates his death as a result of Israel's engagement in Syria. This event played a role in escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, leading to subsequent actions and responses in the region.
  • The defense systems mentioned - Arrow 3, Arrow 2, David's Sling, and Iron Dome - are part of Israel's multi-layered missile defense architecture. Arrow 3 is designed to intercept long-range ballistic missiles, while Arrow 2 focuses on medium-range threats. David's Sling is for mid-range missiles and drones, and Iron Dome is primarily for short-range rockets and artillery shells. These systems work together to provide a comprehensive defense against various types of incoming threats.
  • The reference to Russia's actions in Ukraine in the text is alluding to the situation where Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and supported separatist movements in eastern Ukraine, leading to ongoing conflict. This comparison suggests that the Biden administration's strategy in authorizing a limited Iranian attack on Israel might be aimed at preventing a larger conflict, similar to how some strategies were employed to manage the situation in Ukraine.
  • Ben Shapiro, Senator Marco Rubio, and former president Donald Trump criticized the Biden administration for allegedly allowing a limited Iranian attack on Israel, suggesting it was a weak response that could embolden further aggression. They argue that advocating for restraint from Israel in the face of significant attacks undermines the country's ability to defend itself ...

Counterarguments

  • The reported 99% success rate of Israel's defense systems might be subject to verification and could be seen as an overly optimistic assessment, as missile defense systems historically have varying rates of success depending on numerous factors such as the volume of incoming threats and the sophistication of the attack.
  • The notion that the Biden administration tacitly authorized a limited Iranian military assault could be challenged on the grounds of lacking concrete evidence or official statements confirming such a strategy, and it could be argued that the U.S. would not endorse any attacks on its ally.
  • The strategy of urging restraint on Israel's part may be defended as a diplomatic approach to de-escalate tensions and prevent a broader conflict, rather than being seen as a sign of weakness or ineffective conflict resolution.
  • The criticism that a different U.S. presidential administration would have prevented such an attack is speculative and cannot be substantiated, as it is impossible to predict how different policies would have influenced Iran's actions.
  • The co ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
UNPRECEDENTED: Iran Launches MASSIVE Attack on Israel

Aid to Israel in response

The discussions indicate a strong US interest in ensuring Israel's defense capabilities, with bipartisan efforts underway to possibly introduce legislation for additional aid.

Bipartisan support for aid to resupply Israel's defenses

Steve Scalise announced intentions to consider legislation to support Israel and hold Iran accountable for its attacks, reflecting a bipartisan push to ensure Israel's defense capabilities are robust. Lindsey Graham, sharing similar views, emphasizes the urgency of supporting Israel militarily. Speaker Johnson vows to take up aid to Israel in light of the recent drone attacks, reinforcing bipartisan pressure. While there is an understanding that the aid package should have been negotiated weeks earlier, decisions regarding the specifics of the aid—such as the amount, accountability measures, whether it should be a loan, and other details—remain undecided.

Republican proposals for legislation

Republican figures, including Scalise and Graham, are proposing legislation to support Israel. The possibility of an Israel aid bill being brought forward is mentioned, though it is unclear if it would be tied to Ukraine funding. The discussion includes whether to pass the Senate-passed bill with expediency or to draft an Israel-only aid bill.

Timing and details still undecided

Despite the acknowledged need for urgent support, the timing and exact details of the aid to Israel have not been finalized. There are questions surrounding the nature of the aid, including potential ties to aid for Ukraine and whether Israel will receive assistance separately. This indicates a continuing debate over the most effective means of providing support.

Geopoliti ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Aid to Israel in response

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The specifics of the aid package to Israel, including the amount, accountability measures, loan terms, and other details, were still undecided at the time of the text's publication. There were ongoing discussions about whether the aid would be tied to funding for Ukraine or if it would be a standalone bill. The timing and exact nature of the aid had not been finalized, indicating a continuing debate over the most effective way to provide support.
  • The potential ties between aid for Israel and Ukraine in the context of the text suggest a discussion on whether aid packages for both countries could be linked or separated in legislative proposals. This could involve considerations such as presenting a combined aid bill or distinct bills for each country, highlighting the complex decision-making process in determining the allocation of foreign aid by the U.S. government. The text indicates that the relationship between aid for Israel and Ukraine is part of the ongoing deliberations within the bipartisan efforts to support these nations, reflecting the intricate dynamics of foreign policy decision-making in response to global events.
  • Recognizing Hamas as an Iranian-backed terror group is significant because it highlights the external support and influence Hamas receives from Iran. This acknowledgment underscores the complex geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East, where Iran's backing of Hamas can impact regional security and stability. It also suggests that actions taken against Hamas may have broader implications beyond the i ...

Counterarguments

  • The aid to Israel could be seen as contributing to an arms race in the Middle East, potentially escalating tensions rather than promoting peace.
  • There may be concerns about the accountability and oversight of how the aid is used by Israel, ensuring it aligns with international law and human rights standards.
  • Some may argue that the funds allocated for Israel's defense could be better spent on domestic issues within the United States, such as healthcare, education, or infrastructure.
  • There is a perspective that suggests the U.S. should encourage diplomatic solutions over military aid to resolve conflicts in the Middle East.
  • Critics might point out that unconditional support for Israel could hinder the peace process with Palestinians and may not be conducive to a two-state solution.
  • The tying of aid to Israel with Ukraine funding could complicate and politicize the support for either country, potentially delaying necessary assistance.
  • There could be a concern that the focus on military aid overshadows the need for humanitarian aid and support for civilian populations affected by the conflict.
  • Some may ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
UNPRECEDENTED: Iran Launches MASSIVE Attack on Israel

Prospects for Israeli retaliation

Israel's strategic responses to potential threats include a choice of military actions against Iran or Hezbollah, as well as completing military operations in Gaza before engaging further diplomatically in the region.

Military options to strike Iran or Hezbollah directly

Benny Gantz from Israel's war cabinet suggests Israel will choose the right timing and method to respond to Iran, though no immediate action has been specified. Israel has military assets ready, such as F-35s, F-16s, and F-15s, that can be used to perform strikes on key Iranian targets like oil refineries and the Natanz nuclear base, which would significantly impact Iran's economy and nuclear capabilities.

Shapiro adds that Israel could also preemptively target Hezbollah to the north, which threatens Israel with an arsenal of approximately 200,000 rockets. A major military action could involve destroying Hezbollah’s capabilities in response to the threats from Iran. However, there are concerns about whether the US would support such a direct engagement.

Targets like nuclear facilities or Hezbollah missiles

Concerns over deterrent effect or US support

Focus first on finishing operations in Gaza

Shapiro indicates that Israel's immediate focus might be to conclude its military activities in the Gaza Strip. The city of Rafah, a known Hamas stronghold with four brigades of fighters, is highlighted as a potential target to be dealt with before Israel can move onto larger geopolitical strategies.

Take r ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Prospects for Israeli retaliation

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The F-35, F-16, and F-15 are all fighter jets used by the Israeli Air Force. The F-35 is a stealth multirole fighter, the F-16 is a versatile fighter aircraft, and the F-15 is known for its air superiority capabilities. These aircraft are crucial for Israel's military operations and are capable of carrying out precision strikes on various targets.
  • Preemptively targeting Hezbollah means taking action against Hezbollah before they launch an attack. This strategy aims to neutralize the threat posed by Hezbollah's significant arsenal of rockets and military capabilities. By striking preemptively, Israel seeks to disrupt Hezbollah's ability to carry out attacks against Israel or its interests. This approach is a preventive measure to safeguard Israel's security by proactively addressing potential threats.
  • The Abraham Accords are a series of agreements between Israel and several Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. These accords aim to normalize diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations between Israel and these Arab nations. They mark a significant shift in regional dynamics by fostering cooperation and peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The agreements are seen as a way to counter common threats in the region, particularly from Iran, by building a united front among these nations.
  • Rafah is a city in the southern Gaza Strip known for its association with Hamas, a Palestinian militant group. It has been a significant area for Hamas's operations and has housed several of its military brigades. The city's proximity to the Egyptian border has also played a role in its strategic importance for Hamas. ...

Counterarguments

  • Military action against Iran or Hezbollah could escalate tensions in the region and lead to a broader conflict.
  • Strikes on Iranian targets could provoke retaliation against Israel or its allies and might not have the intended deterrent effect.
  • Preemptive strikes on Hezbollah could result in significant civilian casualties and international condemnation.
  • There is a risk that US support may not be forthcoming for direct military engagements, which could isolate Israel diplomatically.
  • Focusing on military operations in Gaza could further destabilize the area and exacerbate the humanitarian crisis.
  • Prioritizing military action over diplomatic solutions may undermine opportunities for a long-ter ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free

Create Summaries for anything on the web

Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser

Shortform Extension CTA