Last Tuesday night, Iran struck Israel with the largest ballistic missile attack in human history. As the world waits for Israel to respond, international leaders are propagating a number of incorrect myths — that Israel’s response constitutes an “escalation” or even a “preemption”; that Israel will trigger a “regional war”; and that the path to stability is through “restraint” and “de-escalation.”

All three notions are at best naïve, and at worst outright lies.

Here’s what you need to know.

Some “experts” and journalists have suggested that Iran’s attack was merely for show, only against military targets, and a “limited response” that was not intended to escalate hostilities. Yet these bizarre notions do not stand up against the data:

Iran’s barrage of nearly 200 ballistic missiles was the largest  ever launched against anyone, anywhere — in the history of the world. Iran indiscriminately targeted every inch of Israeli territory, making the attack technically a “carpet bombing.”
Each missile carried an average payload roughly equivalent to a 2,000 pound “bunker buster” bomb, for a total payload of approximately 400,000 pounds of explosives, all in under one hour.
The missile defense systems performed admirably, but not perfectly. For example, one missile hit a school in the Israeli town of Gadera, mostly destroying it. Had anyone been inside, they would almost certainly have perished. There were other reports of damage throughout the country.
By tremendous luck, only one person was killed in the barrage (a Palestinian from Gaza taking refuge in the town of Jericho). Had even a greater percentage of the missiles penetrated the defenses, civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure could easily have been catastrophic.

By way of feeble support for Iran, some claim that the Islamic Republic gave advance warning of their attack, which both Iran and the US deny.

Such a warning, in any case, would not have diminished the potential lethality of the attack.

As Israel contemplates a response, US President Joe Biden and the international community nonsensically caution Israel against “escalating” into a “regional war”  and during the Vice-Presidential debate last Wednesday, CBS News’ Margaret Brennan bizarrely asked if the candidates would support Israel conducting a “preemptive” strike on Iran.

It should (but sadly does not) go with out saying that any response to the largest ballistic missile attack in history is, exactly that — a response, and not a “preemption.”

Nor can an Israeli response be considered an “escalation” unless Israel somehow carries out a strike even more severe than the largest ballistic missile attack in the history of the world. In reality, Iran has already escalated, the only question is whether Israel’s response will be severe enough to deter against even further Iranian escalation.

Finally, as we’ve explained previously on our website, the admonition against a “regional war” makes no logical sense. In reality, Israel was fighting a regional war immediately after October 8, facing attacks on seven fronts, but the Jewish State has, step by step, reduced the fighting down to what is now essential only a two-party war versus Iran:

Hamas is no longer a strategic military threat, thanks to nearly a year of intense Israeli operations.

In a mere 10 days, Israel reduced Hezbollah from the world’s most powerful non-state militia to a chaotic group unable to take coordinated action, and Israel is further eroding its capabilities by the hour.

After years of devastating civil war, Syria is essentially a non-factor except as a host for Hezbollah and other Iranian militias.

The Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Iranian linked militias in Iraq, are violent but essentially “rag-tag” operations, and not a significant opponent to any modern military.

The Sunni Gulf states stand strongly against Iran and see themselves effectively as siding with Israel and the United States.

Muslims throughout the Middle East, including within Iran and Lebanon itself, have been cheering Israel’s bold steps, and expressing euphoric visions for a better future: free from oppressive Iranian backed regimes .

All of which leaves only Iran and Israel. Given that Iran has already been at war with Israel and the United States through its proxies for decades, this isn’t even a new war, merely an ongoing one. Israel has, in effect, removed many of Iran’s “pieces from the chessboard,” which has made the regime’s danger more visible, but in actuality, less lethal.

President Biden stated that Israel has a right to defend itself, but that the response must be “proportional,” which begs a question: what would be a “proportional” response to the largest ballistic missile attack in the history of the world? As if in response to this glaring omission, Biden added that the Iranian attack was “ineffective,” bizarrely implying that he would like Israel’s response to be ineffective as well.

Biden’s statement calls to mind another “ineffective” attack: Al Qaeda’s unsuccessful attempt to destroy the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993. The United States conducted a limited investigation and arrested some local actors on US soil, but took no action against the actual perpetrators: Al Qaeda and its leader, Osama Bin Laden.

Perceiving America’s “restraint” as a “green light” to attempt further attacks, Bin Laden went on to blow up US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (killing over 200, including 11 Americans), the American naval ship USS Cole (killing 17 US naval personnel and injuring 39) and finally, on September 11, 2001, attacked the World Trade Center (this time destroying it successfully), the Pentagon, and United Airlines Flight 93 over Pennsylvania, taking the lives of 3,000 innocent people on American soil.

The lesson of history is clear: when America acts with integrity and strength, the world becomes a safer, more stable, and more peaceful place. Yet when America shirks its moral responsibilities in the name of “stability,” the world becomes less stable, less peaceful and less safe.

The principle is playing out again today: the Iranian-backed Houthis operating out of Yemen have shut down Red Sea shipping (thus increasing inflation in the United States and around the world) while also killing an increasing number of US service people. And Iran’s unprecedented missile attack against Israel in April was followed by an even larger one on October 1.

History shows that the only path to stability involves imposing a heavy price on the attacker: including their leadership and also their capacity to strike again.

Based on recent statements, Israel has internalized this lesson, even if others in the international community have not.

Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.

The post ‘Regional War,’ ‘Escalation,’ and ‘Stability’ Are All Myths first appeared on Algemeiner.com.