The recent escalation in Iranian threats over the past two days, including statements from Iran's Supreme Leader, could suggest that Iran's dilemma between two unfavorable options — either responding militarily to Israel despite significant risks or refraining from a response at the cost of further eroding its deterrence — has been resolved in favor of a military reaction although its precise timing and nature have yet to be finalized.
This decision may indicate three key assumptions guiding Iran's current strategy:
A. The absence of a response to the most severe attack on Iran since the Iran-Iraq War could, in the long term, endanger Iran more than a military reaction despite the substantial damage to its air defense systems and missile production capabilities.
Iranian leadership may be concerned that failing to respond would encourage Israel to carry out further future attacks against Iran, including its nuclear program.
B. It is still possible, in Iran's view, to restore its deterrent capability against Israel and to alter the rules of engagement through an action that will demonstrate its capacity to inflict harm using the significant ballistic capabilities it still retains.
C. Iran could believe that it may still influence Israel's anticipated response to any Iranian action — potentially deterring Israel from moving to a more extensive campaign targeting Iranian infrastructure, symbols of the regime, and nuclear sites — by responding differently, for example, launching attacks from outside Iranian territory, relying on its proxies, and targeting specific sites within Israel.
However, these underlying assumptions may be false and could reflect an overestimation of Iran's remaining capabilities (including those targeted by Israel) or an underestimation of Israel's intentions and capabilities. Such miscalculations could lead to further escalation between the two states.
The recent escalation in Iranian threats over the past two days, including statements from Iran's Supreme Leader, could suggest that Iran's dilemma between two unfavorable options — either responding militarily to Israel despite significant risks or refraining from a response at the cost of further eroding its deterrence — has been resolved in favor of a military reaction although its precise timing and nature have yet to be finalized.
This decision may indicate three key assumptions guiding Iran's current strategy:
A. The absence of a response to the most severe attack on Iran since the Iran-Iraq War could, in the long term, endanger Iran more than a military reaction despite the substantial damage to its air defense systems and missile production capabilities.
Iranian leadership may be concerned that failing to respond would encourage Israel to carry out further future attacks against Iran, including its nuclear program.
B. It is still possible, in Iran's view, to restore its deterrent capability against Israel and to alter the rules of engagement through an action that will demonstrate its capacity to inflict harm using the significant ballistic capabilities it still retains.
C. Iran could believe that it may still influence Israel's anticipated response to any Iranian action — potentially deterring Israel from moving to a more extensive campaign targeting Iranian infrastructure, symbols of the regime, and nuclear sites — by responding differently, for example, launching attacks from outside Iranian territory, relying on its proxies, and targeting specific sites within Israel.
However, these underlying assumptions may be false and could reflect an overestimation of Iran's remaining capabilities (including those targeted by Israel) or an underestimation of Israel's intentions and capabilities. Such miscalculations could lead to further escalation between the two states.