Just a few days ago, Iran appeared to be on its heels against Israel. Tehran has wielded influence in the Middle East through proxy militias like Hezbollah — and Israel’s recent devastating attacks against that group inspired a round of commentary suggesting the Islamic regime might be diminished as a result. Now that narrative is in flux.
A missile barrage will do that. Israeli officials are promising “significant retaliation” after Iran launched well more than 100 missiles at Israel on Tuesday, said Axios. (The attack was itself retaliation for Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.) Israel could target Iran’s oil facilities and even some of its nuclear sites. “Iran made a big mistake tonight and it will pay for it,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
This means the long-feared “wider regional war” could be at hand in the Middle East, Al Jazeera said. Iranian officials said they would respond to any attack by Israel with “multiplied intensity.” If Israel “takes retaliatory action,” said Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, “our response will be even tougher.” The tit-for-tat threats have raised a chorus of calls for the two sides to back away from the edge. “However, the violence shows no sign of abating,” said Al Jazeera.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week’s Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Fighting Israel as a ‘pillar of state identity’
“The strike marked a dramatic shift in Iran’s calculations,” Shahram Akbarzadeh said at The Conversation. Tehran has traditionally been “very much concerned” about a direct confrontation with Israel, fearing the “chaos” that would result from war. That concern was counteracted by another truth: “Fighting Israel is very much a pillar of state identity in Iran.” If Iran didn’t respond to the attacks on Hezbollah, it was at “serious risk of undermining its own identity,” Akbarzadeh said. Tehran knows the risks of war with Israel and even the U.S. “It seems Iran is prepared to bear the costs of this.”
“Iran is not ready for war with Israel,” Arash Azizi said at The Atlantic. But it took the risk with the missile attack anyway. “Tehran was fast losing face,” prodding Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to “shore up his anti-Israel credibility.” Iran used groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to confront Israel without direct confrontation. “The approach was always untenable.” Neither is a direct war: Iran’s economy is “battered” and its military is inferior to Israel’s. Netanyahu should still be cautious, Azizi said: “Israel has a stake in not escalating.”
Iran’s ‘instinct for self-preservation’
“We’re likely to see Israel and Iran continue to raise the stakes further,” Nayyera Haq said at MSNBC. The time for proxy warfare is now over — neither side can “hide behind the language of diplomacy” while letting other groups do the fighting for them. Israel’s attacks on Hamas and Hezbollah and its invasion of Lebanon are a “strike at the heart of Iran’s power in the region.” That’s why the rhetoric, and violence, continue to escalate. “It’s a race toward disaster.”
There is “historic upside potential” as Israel and Iran weigh their next moves, Frederick Kempe said in the Atlantic Council’s Inflection Points newsletter. Iran’s “economic fragility and its instinct for self-preservation” could eventually lead to an accommodation: Masoud Pezeshkian, Iran’s reformist president, has previously said that escalation with Israel is a “trap.” Tuesday’s missile attack was probably meant to “assuage hard-liners and buy Iran’s leadership time” without triggering a full-blown war, Kempe said. Such instincts could turn “gathering threats into historic opportunity.”
