Iran faces a dilemma following Saturday’s Israeli airstrike.
With an economy struggling, allies weakened, military vulnerabilities evident and leadership succession at stake, retaliation risks further escalation.
Failure to do so risks appearing weak not only to fellow allies but also to more aggressive and powerful voices within the country.
Iran is already in the midst of a regional war. Since the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, Israel has moved quickly to inflict damage on militants in Gaza and other Iranian proxies, including Hezbollah, the Houthis, and their allies in Syria and Iraq. are.
These groups represent Iran’s “forward defense” against Israel, which is the center of the nation’s deterrent force. They have been severely weakened by the Israeli military’s heavy-handed response since October 7, which has also weakened Iran, making it even more vulnerable.
Iranian officials have made it clear that they do not want a direct war with Israel. They want to maintain a ring of fire around their ally, the so-called Israel.
After Israel attacked Iran, Tehran publicly downplayed the impact of the attack on Saturday and aired regular programming on television. It did not immediately vow massive retaliation, but simply reiterated its right to do so.
In addition to its reluctance, Iran faces enormous economic problems and is wary of a prolonged and costly war with Israel. It faces tough sanctions from the United States and Europe over its nuclear program, forcing it to move closer to Russia and China.
Members of Hamas’s Qassam Brigades in Tripoli, Lebanon, this month. Israel fiercely opposes Iranian proxies, including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iranian allies in Syria and Iraq. Credit…Diego Ibarra Sánchez, The New York Times
The Islamic regime is also grappling with rising prices and serious domestic opposition to its harsh rule, which affects its calculations of retaliation. The regime is not only committed to the destruction of Israel, but also to retaining power in a sophisticated country that is increasingly unpopular.
Analysts believe one reason is that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei allowed the selection of more moderate President Massoud Pezeshikian after hardliner Ebrahim Raisi died in a helicopter crash. There is. Against a backdrop of domestic unrest, Mr. Pezeshkian is pushing for new talks on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions, and this support is likely only possible with the approval of the supreme leader. .
The nuclear program presents its own dilemmas. The damage to its allies over the past year and its apparent technological and military weakness compared to Israel will put pressure on Iran to pursue its nuclear program and develop a bomb.
Iran has already produced bomb-quality uranium within weeks, and there are strong voices within Iran who argue that the best deterrent to Israel and the United States is Israel’s own nuclear arsenal. But Iran also knows that a series of U.S. presidents, including Donald J. Trump, who is running a close race against Vice President Kamala Harris in the U.S. presidential election, have vowed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. .
Complicating matters is a quiet battle brewing over his successor. Khamenei, 85, is believed to be seriously ill. Raisi’s departure has sparked internal anxiety over whether Khamenei’s second son Mojtaba, 55, could become his successor. The powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps has a significant voice and is believed to be open to confrontation with Israel.
Regardless of Iran’s ultimate calculations, and its desire to avoid a major war, it does not guarantee that it will be able to do so.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei met in Tehran in June. The 85-year-old Ayatollah Khamenei is believed to be seriously ill, and the race to succeed him continues quietly. Credit: Arash Khammooshi of The New York Times
Both Israel and Iran are keen to restore the so-called deterrent effect they believe a retaliatory strike would provide. What former American diplomat Jeremy Shapiro called their “geopolitical masculinity”, which allows them to strengthen their ability to intimidate each other and limit each other’s power, I’m looking at it.
Last week, as expected, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragushi said, “In the event of an attack by Israel, the shape of our response will be proportionate and calculated.”
No matter how carefully coordinated these attacks are, even an accidental attack on a hospital or school can easily spill over into widespread violence and cause significant civilian casualties. be.
As Daniel C. Kulzer and Aaron David Miller wrote this week in Foreign Policy, “a spiraling retaliation would at least lead Israel to expand its targeting to include economic infrastructure.” From there, they added, “it is certainly possible to imagine regional escalation, including an Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure.”
However, as ceasefire negotiations in Gaza and Lebanon gather pace, Iran may choose to follow the advice of the United States and Britain to end this latest retaliation.
Ali Baez, director of the International Crisis Group’s Iran project, told X that Israel’s response was “much more robust” than in April.
Israeli officials said Israel attacked Iranian air defenses and missile manufacturing facilities in three provinces, while also hitting targets in Iraq and Syria. However, it avoided building major infrastructure, energy and nuclear facilities.
Saturday shop in Tehran. In addition to its reluctance to retaliate, Iran faces huge economic problems and is wary of a prolonged and costly war with Israel. Credit…Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA, via Shutterstock
Baez said the key question is simple: “Does Iran absorb the blow and try to draw the line in this exchange, or does it try to counterattack and raise the stakes again?”
For Iran, there is a strong case for stepping down the escalating ladder. But there are also powerful voices, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, that regularly call for a more aggressive response.
For Washington and Israel, too, the hope is that a conflict with Iran will become “again a shadow war rather than an overt one,” said David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “In today’s world, that would be a huge accomplishment. Not ending hostility, but bringing it under control.”
Sanam Baqir, head of Chatham House’s Middle East program, said November’s U.S. presidential election was also a factor. “If Iran wants to avoid escalating a broader conflict ahead of an uncertain U.S. presidential election, it needs to take a hit and rely on diplomatic outreach to the region and a breakthrough if the West emerges. “We have to play a focused, long-term strategic game,” she said.
By downplaying the impact of the attack and pressing for a ceasefire, he said, “Iran will seek to turn the tables on Israel and translate its military weakness into diplomatic opening.”
