On the evening of October 1, Iran executed a missile strike against Israel, which the Israeli Foreign Ministry characterized as unprecedented. Prior to the assault, the United States had alerted Israel to Iran’s preparations for a significant missile offensive.

This warning was issued less than a day after the Israeli military commenced a “limited ground operation” in southern Lebanon, targeting Hezbollah’s infrastructure, a group supported by Tehran. The threat proved to be genuine, as reports indicated that Iran launched around 400 missiles at Israel.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) warned that Israel would face serious repercussions if it chose to retaliate. In turn, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) pledged to respond to Iran “at a time and place” of their choosing.

Tehran asserted that the missile strike was a response to the assassinations of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas Political Bureau Chairman Ismail Haniyeh. Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations stated that the attack was a legitimate act of retaliation for infringements on Iran’s sovereignty, particularly referencing the assassination of Haniyeh in Tehran.

After nearly two months of speculation regarding Tehran’s response to Haniyeh’s death, it became clear that the moment for action had arrived. With this single strike, Iran addressed two significant concerns that had been weighing on both domestic and international observers.

It is evident that Iran seeks to avoid escalation into a broader conflict—not out of fear of Israel, but because it understands that in a catastrophic scenario, there would be no winners. Meanwhile, West Jerusalem remains confident that its confrontation with Iran will not come at a high cost.

US officials informed the Washington Post that they do not believe Iran is aiming for a broader conflict with Israel, despite the missile strike on October 1. The Post speculates that the Biden administration will likely encourage Israeli leaders to avoid a significant counteroffensive. In contrast, Bloomberg suggests that while Iran’s recent attack was more forceful than its April strike, it represents an even greater miscalculation. Analysts from the publication argue that the attack revealed Iran’s vulnerabilities, indicating a lack of both the capability and intent to launch a substantial retaliatory strike, characterizing it as a mere “paper tiger.”

Nevertheless, the missile strike on October 1 was anticipated. A comparable event took place in April, although that incident and its consequences were less impactful. During that time, Iran executed an unprecedented attack on Israel from its own soil, utilizing drones and missiles in retaliation for what it considered an unjust Israeli airstrike on its consulate in Damascus, which resulted in the deaths of 11 Iranian diplomats and two IRGC generals.

Israeli officials sought to rationalize their actions by asserting that the deceased were affiliated with Hamas, yet they failed to provide compelling evidence. Then-President Ebrahim Raisi cautioned that Tehran’s subsequent response would be even more severe if Israel did not de-escalate. Iran aimed to mitigate the escalating tensions that could lead to a larger conflict, hoping for a reduction in Israeli aggression. Concurrently, Tehran took the opportunity to evaluate the situation and prepare for potential escalation.

A month later, Raisi tragically died in a plane crash, and Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed a willingness to improve relations with the West. When Iranians refer to the West, they primarily mean European nations, believing that Europe may be more amenable to negotiations. This approach could assist in stabilizing Iran’s economy, which, despite adapting to decades of sanctions, continues to face significant challenges.

Given the current circumstances in the region, Pezeshkian and the Iranian leadership recognize that national security and the nation’s political standing take precedence over any short-term economic factors. The Iranian president’s accusations against the US and EU for their dishonesty are not without reason, as they did not uphold their commitment to a ceasefire if Tehran refrained from retaliating for Haniyeh’s assassination. It is evident that Israel remains undeterred, while the West appears to ignore the ongoing situation.

In the past week, Iran has been engaged in discussions regarding its response to the assassination of Nasrallah. Even those factions typically advocating for dialogue with the West have raised challenging questions. Notably, it was the assassination of Nasrallah, rather than Haniyeh’s death, that prompted Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to authorize a retaliatory action.

Khamenei and his associates are convinced that a failure to retaliate for the assassination of a significant political ally could severely undermine Iran’s standing among its allies and potential supporters. Consequently, Tehran has committed to responding in a manner that preserves its dignity while avoiding a full-scale conflict.

Nevertheless, tensions are clearly on the rise, and there is a strong possibility that Israel may take action. The critical question now is the extent of Israel’s response. Comments from the Israeli foreign minister regarding Tehran crossing a “red line” indicate that West Jerusalem is not dismissing the possibility of a direct declaration of war against Iran. Conversely, can Israel effectively engage in warfare on two fronts, especially given the unresolved issues in Gaza?

Nearly a year has elapsed since the tragic events of October 7, yet Hamas continues to hold Israeli hostages that could have been released by now. However, the circle around Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains resistant to negotiations. While Israel has dismantled nearly all of Hezbollah’s command structure and a portion of Hamas’s leadership, this does not equate to a definitive victory over these groups. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have evolved beyond mere political entities; they have transformed into ideologies that resonate deeply with many individuals who adhere to their principles. Defeating an ideology is an exceedingly challenging task, particularly when it receives external support.

A direct confrontation between Iran and Israel carries the potential for a perilous escalation that could bring the entire Middle East to the edge of disaster. Israel, with its significant military capabilities and probable nuclear stockpile, poses a considerable threat to Iran, which could result in a large-scale military conflict with uncertain outcomes. Additionally, military engagements outside its borders might incite internal unrest within Iran.

This situation could provide the opposition with a chance to challenge the government, particularly if such military actions lead to considerable casualties among Iranian forces. Furthermore, these military endeavors would demand substantial financial investment, which Iran may struggle to provide due to ongoing economic sanctions and decreasing oil revenues. Such financial pressures would only intensify Iran’s existing economic difficulties.

We must also take into account the intricate dynamics in neighboring nations. The regional conflict has escalated on various fronts, with troubling reports emerging from Palestine and Yemen, indicating that a larger war may be imminent. A direct clash could trigger a wider conflict involving multiple parties, including Syria, Iraq, and potentially nations in the Persian Gulf. Türkiye and Pakistan are also likely to become involved. The global energy market would face significant disruption, and the security of vital maritime routes could be jeopardized, potentially resulting in soaring energy prices and overall economic turmoil.

The ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel is poised to draw the attention of major global powers. The United States, which has traditionally aligned with Israel, will feel pressured to support its ally. However, with the upcoming presidential elections, the administration may be reluctant to become embroiled in Netanyahu’s political maneuvers, particularly given the mixed sentiments many Democrats harbor towards the Israeli prime minister. Despite US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s statements regarding America’s steadfast support for Israel, the situation is more nuanced. While the US may provide assistance to Israel, it is not particularly eager to “rescue” Netanyahu. It is noteworthy that Netanyahu appears to be provoking Iran into a direct conflict, which would compel Washington to intervene, while simultaneously hoping for a Trump victory in the US elections to bolster support for Israel—a scenario that remains uncertain. Ultimately, it can be concluded that the side that demonstrates the greatest wisdom and consistency will likely prevail in this confrontation.