As the smoke clears from Israel’s recent air strikes on Iran, cautious optimism is growing that Tehran will refrain from retaliation – at least for now.
But the unprecedented military exchanges between the Middle Eastern rivals signal a precarious shift in the balance of power, heightening fears of an impending conflict that looms larger than it did before the outbreak of the Gaza war.
For the moment, analysts believe both Israel and Iran will act with restraint, wary of dragging the United States and its next president into a conflict neither side desires.
“Interestingly, Israel provided advance warning and cautioned Tehran against further escalation but still crossed huge red lines,” said Sanam Vakil, director of British think tank Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa programme.
Iran has not faced such a direct attack since its war with Iraq in the 1980s, and “there is no doubt that it has been reputationally and militarily weakened”, Vakil said.
“This gives Iran space to de-escalate at a sensitive time domestically, regionally, and internationally,” she said, adding that the Israeli strikes have left Iran “boxed in by its own military weakness”, exposing vulnerabilities while its proxies in Gaza and Lebanon have also faced significant degradation.
Compounding Iran’s worries is the uncertainty surrounding the coming US presidential election. “Further escalation that could draw in the US is dangerous for Tehran,” Vakil said, noting that this could jeopardise avenues for sanctions relief and negotiations, and prompt the next US administration to be even more hostile.
In response to the Israeli strikes, official Iranian statements have played down their impact, framing the damage as limited to air defence systems protecting key facilities.
President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Sunday that Iran “does not seek war with Israel”, yet he hinted at a forthcoming “appropriate response” to what he termed “the aggression of the Zionist regime”. Similarly, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi asserted Tehran’s “inherent right to a legal and legitimate response” in letters sent to the United Nations Security Council and secretary general on Saturday.
Critically, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has delegated decisions on a response to Pezeshkian’s administration, signalling a preference for calculated action “in the best interest of the country”. Khamenei said Israel had made “miscalculations” regarding Iran’s resolve, as well as the “power and determination” of its people.
Gregory Brew, senior Iran analyst for the risk consultancy Crisis Group, interpreted Khamenei’s comments as indicative of a regime that “feels little pressure to retaliate for Israel’s attack”. Following the air assault, US and Israeli leaders touted the success of their operation, claiming to have overwhelmed and incapacitated Iran’s air defences across 20 sites.
In stark contrast to Tehran’s narrative, Israel contended that it significantly damaged facilities involved in drone and missile production, targeting installations that were linked to prior attacks on Israel earlier this month and in April.
A senior Biden administration official noted that Israel had accepted US advice to conduct a “targeted and proportional” response, emphasising low civilian risk.
If Iran decides to retaliate, “we will be ready, and there will be consequences” likely including further sanctions from both the US and the European Union, the official told White House correspondents on Saturday morning. “However, we do not want to see that happen,” the official added.
In a speech on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the air strike “precise and powerful” and said it had achieved “all its objectives” in crippling Iran’s defence capabilities.
Both nations censor media coverage of military operations, making independent verification nearly impossible. Analysts often rely on biased official accounts and satellite imagery, which offer limited insight into the true impact of the strikes.
That said, it appears Iran’s defences have been exposed as vulnerable to Israel’s technologically advanced weaponry, based on what has been made public.
Iran’s regional military strategy is “built upon its proxies and the asymmetric advantage they are thought to produce”, according to Charles Lister, a director specialising in counterterrorism and extremism research at the Washington-based Middle East Institute think tank.
Israel has dealt significant blows to these groups, he said. Yet Hamas and Hezbollah are expected to “persist”, while Yemen’s Houthi movement that has been targeting Red Sea shipping “may thrive”.
Iran has prioritised developing an extensive arsenal of rockets, missiles and drones, which Lister said poses a significant challenge. “But effective 21st-century air defence can manage it, increasingly so,” he said.
In Israel’s latest attacks, the core air defences of Iran were “easily neutralised”, Lister said, its solid fuel production capabilities were “crippled”, likely for more than a year, and its rocket and missile factories were also hit.
“Iran is far from a peer competitor, it’s decades behind in defence,” he said.
In light of these vulnerabilities, Iran is expected to avoid direct confrontation with Israel, focusing instead on normalising relations with Arab states.
Saudi Arabia, along with other Gulf monarchies, Egypt and Jordan – key US allies – were quick to condemn Israel’s strikes, as they remain wary of becoming collateral damage in a larger conflict.
In the short term, analyst Vakil predicts Iran will “try and downplay this hit by drawing attention back to Gaza and the need for a ceasefire”. Tehran will work to maintain the so-called Axis of Resistance amid ongoing military operations, she said while its foreign minister has embarked on a diplomatic outreach campaign across the region.
Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi recently travelled to 20 countries in as many days “to turn the tables on Israel in the public sphere”, Vakil said.