The waiting game
I feel as though we’ve been here before. Just waiting to see what Iran has planned for us. Even as our leaders took their time deciding on a response to the rain of ballistic missiles sent from Iran over a month ago, we knew a response to our response was in the planning. As is our response to the response to the response.
Twice I jested; twice I made my way to my neighbors’ safe room, sitting out the sirens.
This time things have been kicked up a notch. We’d sent planes to bomb Iran. The reports were jubilant. All 20 planes returned safely; all targets were hit. The casualties were minimal, the damage more than superficial. (Though it’s not quite clear how much more than superficial. Do I believe we took out a major portion of Iran’s missile production capabilities? I’ll season that salad with a good sprinkle of salt.)
And now we wait.
The news here was full of superlatives. “The first time we attacked openly on Iranian soil.” “A feat that was perfectly coordinated, carried off without a hitch.” “It was conducted in accordance with American requests and they were fully on board with the operation.”
Yes, the operation even had a catchy name, “Yemei Tshuva,” which can mean days of response or days of atonement or return. It was a nod to the high holidays that had just passed: As if our days of atonement since Oct. 7 could end on a high note, of reckoning. Barely mentioned: An attack on Iran delays the chances of peace negotiations and the return of hostages who have been held in Gaza for over a year.
As the far right predictably grouched that we did not hit hard enough, did not choose such targets as Iran’s nuclear facilities, our leaders patted themselves on the back for choosing a plan that they believe is “just enough.”
Among the news reports, we heard that Iranian news sources barely related to the attack, telling viewers that the Iranian army had successfully repelled the Israeli bombing. But, they added, Iran has a duty to defend itself.
That was conveyed here with a tinge of disappointment: After all, the point seemed to be a show of strength against a bigger, well-armed enemy. But I was glad to hear it. Our story lines mirror one another’s. Iran claims to have struck a serious blow with its missiles; we call their missile attacks a failure. (I assume large-scale carnage would be considered a success.) We do not immediately report damage to an air force base, later claiming the destruction was minimal. They might be expected to do the same when the situation is reversed.
And then we were back to business as usual in Lebanon and Gaza. Playing our waiting game.
Iran, the next day, when it could not deny the Israeli attack, hardened its line, threatening harsh reprisal. Sound familiar?
The pundits here (and there, apparently) are all over the place, predicting everything from all-out war to a way out of the escalation.
Still, we can remain calm for the time being. There are no changes to the instructions from the home front command. They’ll let us know if there are. They might change while we’re asleep, but please do not lose sleep over this possibility.
Hostage negotiations are back on, as well, but they are already being dismissed as dead in the deep water off the Gaza coast. No one is changing their terms, no one is willing to concede. The hostages cannot wait. They’ll wait. Hamas, which apparently did not die with Sinwar, Def and Hania, is dragging us into a war of attrition – the kind we’ve lost before; the kind that cost us hundreds of lives. Our strategy is to keep fighting, taking out pockets of resistance as they pop up. But no one can say how we will actually defeat Hamas or win the war.
And so, we wait.
I jested before. But the game is getting out of hand and I find I can’t laugh anymore. There is nothing funny about the waiting game we are now playing.
The alternative to waiting, of course, is finding a way to quit the game. Instead of saying we’re not interested in a regional war (but are ready to fight one), we could show the world we are not going to take the bait or prolong the wait. We could try a different game – one in which we negotiate for an end to the wars and begin to think about the shape of our future peace. We might have to wait while the terms are hammered out. But the ending can be a new beginning, rather than a turn in the cycle where we all sit and wait to see what the other side has planned.