Iran must decide whether to risk escalation or appear weak.

5 min read

The Middle East conflict intensifies as a result of Israel’s strike on Iran. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his top advisors are making judgments based on avoiding or risking an even harsher escalation.

Out of a number of challenging options, they have to select the least awful one. Retaliating with a fresh round of ballistic missiles is at one extreme of the spectrum. If that occurs, Israel has already promised to strike again.

The other is choosing to construct a boundary between their different areas and the catastrophic exchanges of direct blows. Iran runs the risk of seeming weak, intimidated, and discouraged by Israel’s military might and political resolve, which are supported by the United States, if it continues to fire.

The supreme leader and his advisors will probably ultimately decide on the course of action that, in their opinion, will have the least negative impact on the continued existence of Iran’s Islamic government.

Deadly interactions

Since spring, Israel has been driving the rate of escalation. It views Iran as the primary supporter of the Hamas attacks that took place on October 7 of last year, killing over 1,200 people—about 1,200 of whom were Israelis and over 70 of whom were foreigners. Fearing that Israel was waiting for an opportunity to attack, Iran repeatedly made it clear that it did not want to go to war with Israel.

It did not, however, intend to cease its ongoing, frequently lethal, but subdued pressure on Israel and its allies.

The men in Tehran believed they had a better plan than a full-scale conflict. Rather, Iran attacked Israel through the proxies and partners in its so-called “axis of resistance”. Red Sea shipping was obstructed and destroyed by the Houthis in Yemen. In Lebanon, Hezbollah rockets drove at least 60,000 Israelis from their homes.

Even if Israel’s reprisal drove perhaps twice as many Lebanese from their homes in the south six months into the conflict, Israel was ready to do far more. It threatened to retaliate if Hezbollah did not stop firing into Israel and withdraw from the border.

When that failed to materialize, Israel made the decision to exit a battlefield shaped by Iran’s small-scale but attritional conflict. It struck a string of strong blows that unsettled the Islamic government in Tehran and destroyed its plan. As a result, Iranian leaders are faced with difficult decisions following the most recent Israeli strikes.

Israel increased pressure on Iran and its allies after viewing Iran’s hesitation to wage a full-scale conflict as weakness. Israel’s commanders and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could afford to take chances. They had the unwavering support of President Joe Biden, who provided a safety net by sending substantial American air and naval reinforcements to the Middle East to maintain the US resolve to defend Israel, in addition to large munitions deliveries.

A portion of Iran’s embassy complex in the Syrian capital of Damascus was damaged by an Israeli bomb on April 1. In addition to other senior officials from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), it killed Brig Gen. Mohammed Reza Zahedi, a key Iranian commander.

That the Americans had not been alerted and given time to prepare their own forces for action infuriated them. As Israel was forced to deal with the fallout from its actions, Joe Biden’s support remained unwavering. Iran launched a ballistic missile, cruise missile, and drone attack on April 13. With significant assistance from the US, UK, French, and Jordanian armed forces, Israel’s defenses shot down the majority.

According to reports, Biden urged Israel to “take the win” in the hopes that it would halt what had become to be the most perilous phase of the escalating Middle East conflict. It appeared that Biden’s strategy was succeeding when Israel limited its response to an attack on an air defense position.

Since the summer, however, Israel has escalated the war with Iran and its axis of proxies and supporters on several occasions. The most damage was inflicted during a significant operation against Hezbollah, Iran’s most significant partner in Lebanon. Iran’s forward defense strategy relied heavily on the weapons that Hezbollah had accumulated over the years. The aim was that Hezbollah would pummel Israel from just across the border in Lebanon, discouraging an Israeli strike on Iran.

However, Israel took the initiative and carried out plans it had created when Hezbollah forced it to halt its war in 2006. It invaded south Lebanon, destroyed walkie-talkies and booby-trapped pagers that it had tricked Hezbollah into purchasing, and assassinated Sheikh Hasan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, who for decades had stood as a symbol of defiant resistance to Israel. Israel’s offensive in Lebanon has killed over 2,500 people, displaced over 1.2 million, and caused massive damage to a nation already on its knees after its economy virtually collapsed, according to Beirut authorities.

Inside Lebanon, Hezbollah continues to engage in combat, murdering Israeli soldiers and launching several rockets. But after losing its leader and a large portion of its weaponry, it is in shock.

Iran decided it had to strike back after realizing its approach was on the verge of failing. It would lose its standing as the head of the anti-Israeli and anti-Western forces in the area if it let its allies battle and perish without retaliating. On October 1, it responded by attacking Israel with much larger ballistic missiles.

Israel responded with airstrikes on Friday, October 25. They arrived later than many had anticipated. One reason might have been Israeli plan leaks.

Additionally, Israel is conducting a significant offensive in northern Gaza. The Israeli military is exposing a whole people to bombing, siege, and the possibility of hunger in what UN human rights official Volker Turk has referred to as the deadliest period of the war in Gaza.

If Israel’s attacks on Iran were timed to divert attention from northern Gaza, it would be impossible for an outsider to know. However, it may have been included in the computation.

You May Also Like

More From Author

+ There are no comments

Add yours