Iran quickly sought to minimize the significance of Israel‘s strikes on its territory over the weekend, indicating that it has opted for a path to prevent a larger conflict. However, this attack has established a precedent that the Islamic Republic has endeavored to avoid for the past 40 years.

For decades, both nations have steered clear of direct conflict, instead engaging in a covert struggle. Israel has employed secretive operations to eliminate prominent Iranian figures and launch cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, while Iran has continued to mobilize its Arab proxy militias to target Israel.

The recent attack represents the first instance in which Israel has openly acknowledged conducting strikes within Iran, thereby bringing their covert conflict into the public eye and prompting some within the Islamic Republic to reassess the nation’s deterrent strength.

In April, following an Iranian strike in retaliation for what it claimed was an Israeli attack on its diplomatic facility in Damascus, U.S. officials reported that Israel responded with its own strikes against Iran shortly thereafter, although Israel did not publicly confirm this action.

This latest incident, however, was distinct. Israel explicitly stated that it executed “precise strikes” on military installations in Iran.

“Israel now enjoys greater aerial operational freedom in Iran,” stated Daniel Hagari, Israel’s military spokesman, highlighting the successes of the operation.

In the aftermath of the assault, Iranian state media released images depicting normal life persisting in its cities. Schools remained open, and Tehran’s streets were shown congested with traffic. Hardline commentators ridiculed the attack on television, while social media memes lampooned the limited scope of the Israeli response.

Internal discussion in Iran

Following the attack, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei provided a cautious response, indicating that the strikes should be viewed with neither exaggeration nor minimization.

However, this initial stance of dismissal gradually faded, leading to an internal discussion regarding the necessity for Iran to respond decisively to deter the normalization of Israeli strikes against a regime that prioritizes its own survival.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington, DC, noted, “The prevailing sentiment is that failing to respond could establish a precedent where Israel feels entitled to strike Tehran without facing repercussions.” He expressed concern that if Iran does not take action now, Israel may begin to treat Iran similarly to Syria, resulting in periodic strikes.

The recent strikes, initiated in retaliation for an Iranian assault on Israel three weeks prior, intentionally avoided targeting nuclear and oil installations. Instead, they focused on what the Israeli military identified as “strategic systems in Iran” deemed to be of “great importance.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Iran’s defense capabilities and missile exportation abilities suffered significant damage. CNN has not been able to independently verify these assertions.

Iranian officials reported that some military locations experienced “minor damage” that was “swiftly repaired,” with the Iranian government confirming the deaths of five individuals, including four military personnel.

However, experts contend that the extent of the damage is greater than what Tehran has publicly acknowledged.

“This attack was far more damaging than Iranian officials have suggested. It appears that Iran’s air defense systems and several radars essential for detecting incoming missiles were likely destroyed in the initial strike,” stated Nicole Grajewski, a fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Tehran has invested years in cultivating regional proxies intended to function as a security shield and the primary defense line against Israel. These militias, positioned along Israel’s borders, also served as a deterrent, discouraging direct Israeli attacks on Iran. The strategy was that any Israeli strike on Iran would provoke a response from Tehran, unleashing its militias against Israel.

This delicate balance of power maintained peace in the region until last year, when Hamas, backed by Iran, launched an attack on Israel from Gaza, resulting in the deaths of 1,200 individuals and the abduction of over 250 hostages. This incited a severe Israeli military response that devastated the Gaza Strip and resulted in the deaths of more than 42,000 Palestinians. The escalation of conflict into southern Lebanon led to the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s most significant proxy, severely weakening the organization’s leadership structure.

The weakening of Iran’s key allied militias, Hamas and Hezbollah, along with recent strikes on Iran, has sparked an internal debate within the country regarding the effectiveness of its regional proxies as a deterrent.

“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,” stated Mohammad Ali Shabani, editor of Amwaj.media, a London-based news outlet focusing on Iran, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula.

The nuclear option

Following the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the nuclear agreement with Tehran in 2018, aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear activities, the Islamic Republic has progressively increased its uranium enrichment. This enrichment is crucial for developing a nuclear bomb if elevated to a high purity level. Currently, Iran’s stockpiles have reached a purity level of 60%, which is just a step away from the weapons-grade threshold of 90%.

Iranian officials have consistently asserted that they do not intend to weaponize their nuclear program, yet they leverage its potential as a bargaining chip in discussions with Western nations.

As Israel continues to undermine Iran’s deterrent capabilities, the voices within the Islamic Republic advocating for the development of a nuclear weapon are gaining traction, according to Parsi. He noted, “The trajectory and momentum are with those who argue that if Iran possessed a nuclear deterrent, these events would not be occurring.”

Experts express skepticism regarding Iran’s capacity to swiftly construct a nuclear weapon, even if it achieves weapons-grade uranium purification. The entire process of developing and testing an atomic bomb could span several years, leaving Iran exposed to potential Israeli strikes on its nuclear sites.

The prospect of a nuclear bomb has become “much more public now” and is increasingly “normalized in conversation,” yet Israel has successfully disrupted Iran’s nuclear ambitions in the past and may do so again, Grajewski remarked.

Parsi indicated that if Israel were to target Iran’s nuclear facilities, regardless of the speed at which Iran could develop a bomb, Tehran would pursue nuclear weaponization.

“Even the more hawkish American presidents have refrained from endorsing military action, as the most probable outcome would be that it pushes Iran towards nuclear armament,” Parsi stated.