Iran’s response to Israel’s response could be a game changer

The tensions between Iran and Israel have escalated to a point unseen in the past four decades, marking a critical juncture for the region. Recent strikes by Israel on military facilities in three Iranian provinces represent an unprecedented direct attack, further intensifying the hostilities between the two regional rivals. This escalation does not bode well for regional stability. If the trend continues, it could spark a wider conflict that would not be limited to Israel and Iran, but could envelop other regional players and even global powers.
For several decades, Iran’s primary military strategy has revolved around asymmetrical warfare, leveraging proxy forces to achieve its objectives without directly engaging its enemies. This indirect approach has allowed Tehran to influence conflicts in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, while avoiding a full-scale confrontation with Israel. Iran’s government, particularly its Revolutionary Guards, has relied on Hezbollah in Lebanon, various Shiite militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen to counter Israel and its allies without provoking direct retaliation. This method has proved effective, allowing Iran to expand its influence without the risks of an all-out war. However, recent events suggest that there has been a shift away from this established modus operandi.
The dynamic changed dramatically in April when Israel launched airstrikes on Iran’s consulate in Damascus, which Tehran regarded as a blatant provocation. In response, Iran did something it rarely does — it directly attacked Israel with missiles and drones. This marked a significant departure from Iran’s typical strategy of using proxies to fight its battles. The launch of hundreds of missiles and drones into Israel showed that Iran was and is willing to take greater risks.
Following Israel’s assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in all of Iran’s domestic and foreign policies, particularly when it comes to matters of national security, wasted no time in ordering retaliatory strikes. However, despite the immediate strike orders, Iran chose not to sustain a prolonged attack. This restraint may have been a calculated decision, allowing Iran to express its discontent without fully committing to a costly conflict.
The situation intensified even further after the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, which was followed by an Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon. In response, Iran launched over 100 missiles into Israeli territory, a dramatic escalation in hostilities. Israel, in turn, vowed to retaliate, raising the stakes to an even higher level. The dangerous unpredictability of these back-and-forth strikes has left both countries on high alert, where any miscalculation could lead to a full-scale war that neither side may be able to control. 

Tehran may revert to its strategy of asymmetrical warfare.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

The escalation reached a new peak with Israel’s attacks on military facilities within three Iranian provinces. This direct strike on Iranian soil signifies Israel’s intent to degrade Iran’s military capabilities and serves as a clear warning to Tehran. This unprecedented move has placed Iran in a position where a robust response may be unavoidable, escalating the risk of regional conflict. The international community, including the US and European powers, is closely watching how Iran will respond, as any retaliatory actions could further destabilize the Middle East.
The most critical aspect of this conflict is how Iran will respond to Israel’s latest and most direct strike yet. This moment could be the tipping point that either leads to a de-escalation of tensions or pushes the two nations toward full-scale war. Iran’s response will be closely watched by not only Israel, but also by the broader international community. If Iran chooses to respond strongly, it could trigger a chain reaction that would engulf the Middle East in a larger, more devastating conflict. On the other hand, a more measured response from Tehran could defuse the situation, at least temporarily.
There are several potential scenarios that could unfold in the coming days. One possibility is that Iran will downplay Israel’s retaliation, choosing to treat it as insignificant rather than escalating the situation further. This scenario has precedent; when Israel launched airstrikes in April targeting an Iranian air defense facility in Isfahan after Iran’s missile attack, Tehran decided not to escalate the conflict further. Instead, Iranian officials played down the attack, and the situation cooled down. Such a response is seen as favorable for Iran, as it avoids the risk of direct war, which Tehran is likely keen to avoid given the current state of its economy which is under immense pressure due to sanctions and mismanagement.
Iran may revert to its strategy of asymmetrical warfare, activating all its proxies across the region, including the Shiite militia groups in Iraq, to retaliate against Israel.
Another possible scenario is that Iran will vow to retaliate harshly, but will delay any significant action in an effort to de-escalate tensions. This would allow Iran to save face while avoiding a costly conflict with Israel. By keeping Israel uncertain about when or if the retaliation will come, Iran can maintain psychological pressure on Israeli leaders, who would be forced to remain on high alert. This tactic has been used before, most notably after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. At that time, Iran ordered retaliatory strikes, but did not follow through immediately.
Ultimately, Iran’s response to Israel’s latest move will be critical in determining the trajectory of this conflict. The tit-for-tat nature of these retaliations is incredibly dangerous. No matter how carefully planned a country’s military actions might be, the inherent unpredictability of war means that things can quickly spiral out of control. A full-scale conflict between Iran and Israel would not be confined to those two nations. Other countries in the region, such as Syria and Iraq, could be drawn into the fray, as well as global powers such as the US and Russia. This could lead to a conflagration that would engulf the entire Middle East, with devastating consequences for the region and the world.

• Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian American political scientist.
X: @Dr_Rafizadeh