Iran rushed to downplay the impact of Israel’s strikes on its territory this weekend, suggesting that it has taken an off-ramp to avoid a wider war, but the attack set a precedent the Islamic Republic has tried to avoid since its inception 40 years ago.
The adversaries had spent decades avoiding direct confrontation, instead choosing to exchange punches in a shadow war. Israel used clandestine operations to assassinate key Iranian figures and execute cyberattacks on vital facilities as Iran continued activating its Arab proxy militias to attack the Jewish state.
Saturday’s attack marked the first time Israel has acknowledged striking Iran, bringing the shadow war into the open and crossing a threshold that has led some in the Islamic Republic to question the country’s deterrence capabilities.
In April, after Iran attacked Israel in retaliation for what it said was an Israeli attack on its diplomatic building in the Syrian capital Damascus, US officials said Israel responded by attacking Iran just days later. Israel didn’t publicly acknowledge that attack.
The latest attack, however, was different. Israel openly said it conducted “precise strikes” on military targets in Iran.
“Israel now has broader aerial freedom of operation in Iran,” Israel’s military spokesman Daniel Hagari said, touting achievements in the attack.
Shortly after the assault, Iran’s state media published images showing everyday life continuing as usual in its cities. Schools continued operating and Tehran’s streets were shown gridlocked with traffic. Hardline commentators mocked the attack on television and social media memes poked fun at the limited nature of the Israeli response.
Internal debate emerging
In his first comments after the attack, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei opted to give a measured response, saying the strikes should “neither be exaggerated nor downplayed.”
But that initial wave of dismissal eventually dissipated, and an internal debate emerged over whether Iran should deliver a harsh response to prevent Israeli strikes from becoming normalized against a regime focused on its own survival.
“The sense is that if they do not respond they will normalize the idea that Israel can strike Tehran without getting a response,” Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington, DC said, adding that there is a “fear if they don’t do something now Israel will start treating Iran as they did with Syria which means every once in a while, (Israelis will) strike.”
Iranian officials say some military sites sustained “minor damage” that was “swiftly repaired.” Five people were killed, including four army personnel, the Iranian government said.
Experts however say that the damage was more significant than Tehran has acknowledged.
“This (attack) was much more damaging than Iranian officials have led on, Iran’s air defenses and some of the radars that are crucial to identifying incoming missiles, it seems that those were destroyed in the first wave,” Nicole Grajewski, a fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Tehran spent years building regional proxies designed to serve as a security umbrella and the first line of defense against Israel. These militias, stationed at Israel’s borders, also acted as a deterrent, discouraging Israel from directly striking Iran. The idea was that if Israel were to strike Iran, Tehran would retaliate by unleashing its militias against Israel.
The longstanding balance of power prevented a regional war – until Iran-backed Hamas attacked Israel from Gaza last year, killing 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages. That prompted a fierce Israeli onslaught that has destroyed the enclave and killed more than 42,000 Palestinians. The expansion of that conflict to southern Lebanon led to Israel’s assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s most formidable proxy, and decimated the organization’s commanding hierarchy.
The degrading of Iran’s strongest allied militias, Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the weekend strikes on Iran, have fueled another internal debate in Iran: whether regional proxies are an effective deterrence.
“There are certainly voices within the political establishment who question the efficacy of the ‘forward defense’ doctrine, or the notion that Iran’s regional alliance network can provide a security umbrella. If that is changing, one natural aspect of the debate is what could take place to restore deterrence,” Mohammad Ali Shabani, the editor of Amwaj.media, a London-based news site focusing on Iran, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula.
The nuclear option
Since the Trump administration abandoned the nuclear agreement with Tehran in 2018, to put curbs on its nuclear program, the Islamic Republic has been gradually ramping up enrichment of uranium, a key ingredient of a nuclear bomb if purified to a high level. Its stockpiles have reached 60% purity, a short step away from weapons-grade, which is 90%.
Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that they have no intention of weaponizing the country’s nuclear program, while simultaneously using its potential as leverage in negotiations with the West.
As Israel continues disintegrating Iran’s deterrence capability, the minority voices in the Islamic Republic favoring the weaponization of its nuclear program are becoming stronger, Parsi said. “The trajectory and momentum are with those who are saying if Iran actually had a nuclear deterrence this would not be happening.”
Experts cast doubt over Iran’s ability to quickly build a nuclear weapon even if it can purify uranium to weapons grade. The process to build and test an atomic bomb may take years, leaving Iran vulnerable to Israeli attacks on its nuclear facilities.
The nuclear bomb option is “much more public now” and has become “normalized in conversation,” but Israel has been able to derail Iran’s nuclear program in the past and may be able to do it again, Grajewski said.
Parsi said if the Israelis were to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, regardless of whether the Iranians can get a bomb quickly or not, Tehran will seek to build a nuclear weapon.
“Even the more hawkish American presidents have not favored taking military strikes because the most likely outcome is that, at some point, that will make Iran turn nuclear,” Parsi said.
