Will Iran respond to Israel's attack? The answer may surprise you - opinion

The most pressing question following Israel’s recent attack on Iran is: Will Iran respond, and if so, how? 

The likely answer is that Iran will not respond, for several objective reasons. Primary among these is evidence suggesting extensive prior arrangements were made before the Israeli attack, with Iran being informed of the attack and its intended targets, according to informed American sources speaking to Axios.

These arrangements contradicted Israeli intentions, as Defense Minister Yoav Gallant had sought a “lethal, precise, and surprising” attack. The American role in these arrangements is evident, making them part of an implicit agreement under which Iran refrains from retaliation.

The critical factor in maintaining these arrangements lies in Israel’s adherence to the pre-communicated target list. The Iranian losses appear to have been limited to military facilities, which spares the Iranian regime any embarrassment should it choose not to respond. 

This situation allows both sides to claim the achievement of their objectives and declare psychological victory. 

This is further evidenced by the notable media blackout from both parties, with information being released so selectively that the nature of the strikes remains unclear – whether they were conducted by aircraft or missiles, and whether they were launched from within or outside Iranian airspace.

This attack has effectively restored the balance of power and rules of engagement that have historically governed their conflict. While this strategic position may not align with current Israeli government objectives – indeed, it represents a missed opportunity to confront Iran at its weakest regional and international position – Netanyahu’s government appears to have settled for constraining Iran’s regional proxies by eliminating terror leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas. In doing so, Israel has maintained its strong alliance with the United States, which had strongly opposed igniting any regional war on the eve of US presidential elections. 

Israel is now expected to pivot toward cyber warfare or hybrid warfare as more effective and less costly strategies to counter Iranian threats.

Israelis on a perpetual state of alertness 

Despite Israel’s qualitative superiority in missile and air capabilities, Netanyahu’s government recognizes the domestic sensitivity and the challenge of keeping Israelis in a perpetual state of alertness due to ongoing Iranian threats.

Additional factors suggest Iran will not respond. Tehran recognizes that the limited Israeli attack may be attempting to provoke a response that would justify expanding the conflict. The Iranian regime’s strategy in such situations is to avoid entrapment, particularly since the Israeli attack was proportional to Iran’s previous actions and caused no major damage to Iranian military facilities.

Furthermore, Iran’s fundamental strategy relies on proxy warfare rather than direct confrontation, meaning it retains the option to respond through its proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq. The Iranian regime prioritizes preserving its network of regional proxies, focusing on de-escalation and avoiding their total loss, rather than matching Israel’s pattern of strikes and counterstrikes.

A crucial domestic consideration is Iranian public opinion. The Israeli attack was imperceptible to the Iranian people and caused no visible losses. Consequently, the hardline regime’s stature remains intact, preserved by the limited nature of what was effectively Israel’s first acknowledged direct attack on Iran. 

Testing Iranian air defense capabilities 

The attack primarily tested Iranian air defense capabilities without directly engaging them, allowing the Iranian regime to claim success in deterring a larger Israeli assault. Conversely, Israel can claim success in penetrating Iranian territory with aircraft, missiles, and drones despite Gulf Cooperation Council states’ refusal to allow use of their airspace. Israel can also argue that the attack has broken a long-standing psychological barrier between the two countries, making future operations more feasible.

In conclusion, the attack has maintained the strategic equilibrium between Iran and Israel, allowing both sides to respite and claim victory. This makes an Iranian response highly unlikely, if not impossible. 

However, psychological warfare, propaganda statements, and mutual threats will likely continue, as such verbal confrontation falls within acceptable parameters of their relationship. Despite preemptive statements from Iranian officials – including Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baqai’s assertion that “Any aggression by the Israeli regime against Iran will be met with full force,” and The New York Times’ report that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered military planning for potential responses – these fall within Iran’s acceptable retreat parameters.

The limited scope of the Israeli attack, which targeted only a few military bases and weapons storage facilities without causing widespread damage or casualties, does not necessitate an Iranian response. Indeed, such a response would likely give Israel the opportunity it originally sought to destroy strategic targets – an action the United States had previously prevented.

The writer is a UAE political analyst and former Federal National Council candidate.