Tehran is considering how to respond to a powerful strike by the Israeli army that is more diplomatic than has significant economic or military consequences – damaging the Iranian diplomatic mission. FT Columnists considerthat Israel has raised the stakes in a war that has already engulfed more than one country in the East following the Hamas attack on the Jewish state on October 7. The Middle East expects a powerful response from Iran, but there is a high probability that Tehran will decide only on some symbolic steps.
YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED
Previous lessons – strikes on Iran and Tehran’s response
In 2020, Iran promised harsh revenge for the killing of Qassem Soleimani, a symbol of the Islamic Republic. Indeed, Tehran fired ballistic missiles at a US base in Iraq. However, as facts show, Iran notified the United States of its intentions in advance. Thus, Tehran played a double game – it satisfied the aggressive appetites for revenge among its own electorate and at the same time prevented a direct military clash with the United States.
There was a similar story with the result during threats to kill another military head of an Islamist state. Iran, according to the FT, is now faced with a dilemma – how to prevent further attacks on Iranian interests without being drawn into a war that could have fatal consequences.
Why is Iran at a fork in the road and what does this mean for the unity of the “anti-event”?
After the attack on the Iranian diplomatic mission, the circle of states that consider Iran the leader of the anti-Western coalition is expecting a decisive response. “Responses are necessary to maintain balance, to contain,” said Lebanese analyst Kassem Kassir.
However, even Iranian analysts believe that a direct military conflict should not be expected, although there are threats of countermeasures that would have serious consequences.
“The danger for Iran is that a retaliation that is perceived as weak could risk bolstering Iran’s reputation and affect the morale of all its supporters, including Hamas. However, a more aggressive response could plunge the country into direct confrontation with Israel and possibly the US, which the regime is believed to be keen to avoid.
Moreover, external rhetoric and hostility towards the United States has always been offset by the pragmatism of Iran’s leaders. This is why Iran maintains a balance and exists as a more or less stable state, even with such harsh anti-Western rhetoric.
In Tehran, according to the publication, they fear that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be seeking to push Iran towards direct confrontation. And this will destroy the very precarious balance in the Middle East, the publication concludes.
Analyzing the situation, one can compare Iran’s actions with the actions of diplomacy in the United States and some European countries, which, while maintaining their commitment to Ukraine, at the same time are trying to act so as not to be on the verge of a direct conflict with Russia, maintaining some kind of, albeit ephemeral, balance of power .
Foreign Affairs previously noted that on April 1, Israeli warplanes attacked a building in Damascus that is part of the Iranian embassy, killing at least 11 people. Tehran has not yet responded. But when he does, the scale and nature of his actions will help answer the fundamental question underlying much of the debate about the current situation in the Middle East: Has American deterrence worked against Iran?
