In the endless chain of reactions and counter-reactions that has marked the Middle Eastern scenario in the last year, after the Israeli retaliation tonight for the Iranian missile attack triggered by the previous wave of attacks by the Jewish State against Tehran’s allies, the question that now remains on the table is what the Islamic Republic‘s next move will be. Has Israel‘s retaliation effectively re-established deterrence for both actors involved or does it risk triggering an unmanageable escalation? This is the question posed by several analysts quoted by the main American and Israeli media.
Iran, game closed? General Tricarico and the scenarios after the attack” bad-src=”https://www.iltempo.it/assets/images/placeholder_iltempo.png”/>According to the Washington Post, Israel planned the attack with the intention of minimizing Iranian casualties, allowing Iran to deny extensive damage and contain the situation. In other words, it was a larger-scale version of what was done in April when Israel responded to Iran’s first missile attack with a raid on the country’s central region without causing much damage, according to what Tehran said at the time. Furthermore, Israeli fighters targeted military installations but not the nuclear program or oil, as the US administration had been pushing for weeks. The ayatollahs’ regime has informed the archenemy, through a foreign mediator, that it will not respond to the attack, Sky News Arabia reported, citing close sources.
Tehran finds itself in a serious dilemma, underlines the New York Times: if it reacts, it risks further escalation at a time when its economy is in difficulty, its allies are faltering, its military vulnerability is evident and his leadership succession is at stake. If it doesn’t do so, it risks appearing weak in the eyes of its allies themselves, as well as the most aggressive and powerful ‘hawks’ at home. The call to re-establish deterrence is strong in both countries, an expression of what former US diplomat Jeremy Shapiro called “geopolitical virility”. Aware of the flagging economy, domestic protests and the potential stakes of a resumption of nuclear talks in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions, with the United States in a period of uncertainty, focused on the upcoming elections, it is unclear which it will be the Iranian calculation, even if the temptation to bring the conflict back to a shadow war, and no longer in an open field, seems strong for both contenders. In favor of this reading is the regime’s reaction after the night attack: Tehran publicly downplayed the effect of the raids and did not immediately promise serious retaliation, simply reiterating its right to do so. There is no shortage of hard-line supporters, neither in Iran nor in Israel, between Pasdran and the Israeli far right who are trying to raise the bar, but it remains to be seen how much following they will be able to obtain.
#Tehran #scenarios #Time
Interview with Dr. Amina Khatami, Middle East Relations Expert
Interviewer: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Khatami. Following the recent clashes between Israel and Iran, many analysts are debating whether Israel’s retaliatory actions have restored deterrence or could potentially lead to further escalation. What’s your take on this?
Dr. Khatami: Thank you for having me. It’s a complex situation. From my perspective, Israel’s recent actions seem designed to deter Iran while minimizing direct confrontation. The goal appears to be to demonstrate Israel’s military capabilities without causing significant casualties that could provoke a stronger Iranian response. However, traditional deterrence relies on the calculations of both parties, and the dynamics in the region are volatile.
Interviewer: The Washington Post reported that Israel aimed to prevent extensive damage to Iranian assets. How do you think Iran interprets this strategy?
Dr. Khatami: Iran is likely viewing this as a tactical move. By not targeting critical elements of their military or nuclear infrastructure, Israel allowed the Iranian government to save face, which is crucial for domestic and regional politics. Iran’s leadership has conveyed that they would not respond aggressively, which suggests they might prefer to avoid a prolonged conflict, at least for now.
Interviewer: Some might argue that the lack of a strong Iranian response could encourage Israel to continue its strikes. Do you believe this could lead to a dangerous cycle of attacks?
Dr. Khatami: Absolutely. The situation is precarious. If Israel perceives that its strategy is effective and that it can strike without significant repercussions, it may embolden them to continue. This could lead Iran to reassess its restraint, especially if they feel cornered or humiliated. The risk of miscalculation is high, and any sudden escalation could spiral into a larger conflict, not just between Israel and Iran, but potentially involving their regional allies and adversaries.
Interviewer: Given the current context, what should the international community’s role be in this situation?
Dr. Khatami: The international community must advocate for dialogue and de-escalation. Direct engagement is crucial, particularly from major powers like the US, who have influence over both Israel and Iran. It’s important to create a space for negotiation, which can prevent further military actions and work towards a more stable regional security framework.
Interviewer: Thank you, Dr. Khatami, for your insights on this tense situation. It will be interesting to see how the coming weeks unfold in the Middle East.
Dr. Khatami: Thank you for having me. Indeed, the next steps will be critical for peace and stability in the region.
Dr. Khatami: That’s a valid concern. A perception of weakness on Iran’s part could embolden Israel to escalate its actions. However, it’s also essential to recognize that Iran is currently facing significant internal challenges, including economic difficulties and social unrest. The leadership is aware that engaging in a full-blown conflict could exacerbate these issues. They may opt for selective responses, such as cyberattacks or proxy engagements, rather than direct military confrontation, to maintain a degree of deterrence while avoiding escalation.
Interviewer: You mentioned Iran’s internal challenges. How do you think these factors affect Tehran’s international posture and decision-making?
Dr. Khatami: The Iranian leadership is caught between demonstrating strength to its allies and managing significant domestic grievances. A heavy-handed military response could undermine their domestic support and provoke further protests. Thus, Iran might continue to exercise caution in its international engagements while relying on asymmetric tactics to respond to threats. They need to tread carefully in a region where they are perceived as vulnerable but also must maintain a facade of power.
Interviewer: With the upcoming U.S. elections and domestic pressures in both countries, how might these elements influence the ongoing tension?
Dr. Khatami: U.S. foreign policy is likely to be influenced by electoral considerations; any strong military engagement might not be favorable for candidates anticipating public sentiment. Domestically, both Tehran and Jerusalem face pressures from hardline factions pushing for more aggressive stances. Therefore, we might see a dance of provocations where both sides test limits without crossing into full-scale warfare, as they navigate both international and domestic landscapes.
Interviewer: Thank you, Dr. Khatami. Your insights into the delicate balance of power in the region are invaluable as we navigate this evolving situation.
Dr. Khatami: Thank you for having me. It’s important to keep the dialogue open as these dynamics continue to unfold.
