Jeremy Bowen: Iran faces hard choices between risks of escalation or looking weak

Israel's assault on Iran intensifies the conflict in the Middle East. At the core of the choices made by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his top advisors is the need to either avert or confront the possibility of an even greater escalation.

They have to choose the option that is the least unfavorable among several tough alternatives. On one side, there’s the option of responding with another barrage of ballistic missiles. Israel has already warned that it will respond in kind if that occurs.

On the other hand, there's the choice to put an end to the damaging back-and-forth of direct attacks on each other's lands. If Iran chooses not to retaliate, it risks appearing weak, fearful, and unable to stand up to Israel's military might and political resolve, which is supported by the United States.

Ultimately, the top leader and his advisors are expected to choose the option that they believe poses the least threat to the continuation of Iran's Islamic government.

In the moments leading up to and following Israel's assaults, Iran's state-run media released strong statements that seem to indicate a predetermined choice to react. Their rhetoric mirrors that of Israel, emphasizing their right to defend themselves against aggression. However, given the significant risks involved, Iran may reconsider its threats.

This is the expectation of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer of Britain, who has aligned himself with the United States' position that Israel is acting in self-defense.

"I firmly believe that Israel is entitled to protect itself from threats posed by Iran," he stated. "At the same time, it’s important to prevent any additional escalation in the region, and I call on all parties to exercise caution. Iran should refrain from retaliating."

Iran has maintained a steady message since launching a ballistic missile at Israel on October 1. Just last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi spoke to Turkey's NTV channel, stating that "any assault on Iran will be regarded as a significant violation for us. We will respond to such an assault."

Just hours before the Israeli airstrikes, Esmail Baqai, spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, stated, "Any act of aggression by the Israeli government towards Iran will be met with a strong response." He described the notion that Iran would not retaliate to a minor Israeli attack as "completely misleading and unfounded."

As the Israeli planes were returning to their base, Iran's foreign ministry claimed its right to defend itself, referencing Article 51 of the UN Charter. In a statement, Iran asserted that it had both the right and the duty to react to foreign acts of hostility.

Since spring, Israel has been driving the increase in tensions. The country considers Iran to be the main supporter behind the Hamas assaults that led to the deaths of around 1,200 people, including both Israelis and over 70 foreign nationals, on October 7th of last year. Concerned that Israel may be searching for an opportunity to launch a strike, Iran has consistently communicated that it does not wish to engage in a full-scale war with Israel.

This didn't imply that it was willing to cease its ongoing, frequently dangerous, yet less intense pressure on Israel and its partners.

The leaders in Tehran believed they had a more strategic approach than engaging in full-scale war. Rather, Iran leveraged its allies and proxy groups within what it calls the "axis of resistance" to strike against Israel. The Houthis in Yemen disrupted and attacked maritime traffic in the Red Sea, while rocket assaults by Hezbollah from Lebanon drove at least 60,000 Israelis to flee their residences.

Six months after the conflict began, Israel's response led to possibly double the number of Lebanese residents fleeing their homes in the southern region. However, Israel was ready to escalate its actions significantly. It issued a warning that if Hezbollah did not cease firing into Israel and withdraw from the border area, it would respond forcefully.

When that didn’t occur, Israel opted to escape a conflict influenced by Iran’s ongoing, albeit constrained, military campaign. They delivered a series of significant attacks that disrupted the Islamic regime in Tehran and dismantled its strategic plans. As a result, following the recent Israeli assaults, Iranian leaders are left with only tough options.

Israel saw Iran's hesitation to engage in a full-scale war as a sign of weakness and increased its pressure on both Iran and its allies. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel's military leaders were in a position to take chances, bolstered by President Joe Biden’s clear backing. This support included not only large shipments of weapons but also the deployment of substantial American naval and air forces to the Middle East, reinforcing the U.S. pledge to defend Israel.

On April 1, an airstrike by Israel targeted and damaged a section of Iran’s diplomatic facility in Damascus, the capital of Syria. The attack resulted in the death of a high-ranking Iranian official, Brigadier General Mohammed Reza Zahedi, as well as several other senior members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The Americans were outraged that they hadn’t received advance notice, which would have allowed them to prepare their own troops. However, Joe Biden remained steadfast in his support for Israel as it dealt with the fallout from its choices. On April 13, Iran launched an assault involving drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles. While a majority of these threats were intercepted by Israel's defense systems, they received significant assistance from the military forces of the US, UK, France, and Jordan.

It seems that Biden urged Israel to "accept the victory," in the hopes that this would help de-escalate the escalating conflict in the Middle East. When Israel limited its retaliation to targeting an air defense facility, it appeared that Biden’s approach was yielding positive results.

Approximately 1,200 individuals lost their lives during the Hamas assault on Israel on October 7.

Since the summer, Israel has consistently intensified its conflict with Iran and its network of allies and proxy groups. The most significant strikes occurred during a large-scale offensive aimed at Hezbollah, Iran’s primary ally in Lebanon. Over the years, Iran has invested heavily in strengthening Hezbollah's weaponry as a crucial element of its defensive strategy. The thinking behind this was that any Israeli assault on Iran would be deterred by the threat of Hezbollah launching attacks from just beyond the Lebanese border.

However, Israel took the initiative, putting into action strategies it had created since Hezbollah successfully resisted it during the 2006 conflict. It detonated devices disguised as pagers and walkie-talkies that it had tricked Hezbollah into purchasing, launched an invasion of southern Lebanon, and eliminated Hezbollah's leader, Sheikh Hasan Nasrallah, a figure who had long represented steadfast opposition to Israel. Officials in Beirut report that Israel's military actions in Lebanon have claimed over 2,500 lives, displaced more than 1.2 million people, and inflicted significant damage on a nation that was already struggling with a devastated economy.

Hezbollah continues to engage in combat and target Israeli soldiers within Lebanon, launching numerous rockets. However, the group is struggling after the loss of its leader and a significant portion of its military equipment.

Confronted with the impending failure of its approach, Iran realized it needed to take action. Letting its allies suffer casualties without retaliating would undermine its role as the front-runner of the anti-Israeli and anti-western movements in the area. In response, it launched a significantly larger ballistic missile strike on Israel on October 1.

The airstrikes that took place on Friday, October 25, were Israel's answer to the situation. They arrived later than anticipated by many observers. It's possible that the release of information about Israel's strategies may have played a role in this delay.

Israel is conducting a significant military operation in the northern part of Gaza. Volker Turk, the UN human rights chief, has described this situation as the most dire phase of the ongoing conflict in Gaza. He has stated that the Israeli forces are imposing bombings, blockades, and the threat of famine on the entire population.

An external observer can't determine if Israel's strikes on Iran were intended to divert global focus from northern Gaza. However, it’s possible that this was considered in their strategy.

Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system successfully shot down the majority of the missiles fired by Iran on October 1st.

Breaking The Cycle Of Escalation

Halting ongoing cycles of attacks can be challenging when the nations involved fear that failing to react will make them appear weak and vulnerable. This is how conflicts can escalate uncontrollably.

The key issue now is whether Iran is willing to let Israel have the final say, at least for this phase of the conflict. President Biden supported Israel's decision to respond following the events of October 1st. However, he also made an effort to prevent a more severe escalation, advising Israel not to target Iran's critical facilities, including its nuclear, oil, and gas sites. To strengthen Israel's defenses, he deployed the THAAD anti-missile system to the country, and Prime Minister Netanyahu consented to follow his guidance.

The American elections on November 5 are influencing the strategies of both Israel and Iran regarding future actions. If Donald Trump wins a second term, he may not feel as pressured as Biden to respond to any Iranian retaliation with military strikes on nuclear, oil, and gas facilities.

The Middle East finds itself in a state of anticipation once more. Israel's choice to refrain from targeting Iran's key assets could provide Tehran with an opportunity to delay a reaction, at least for a while, to allow diplomatic efforts to progress. During the UN General Assembly last month, Iranian officials hinted that they might be willing to engage in another round of talks regarding their nuclear program.

This situation is significant for everyone beyond the Middle East. Iran has consistently claimed that it does not seek to develop a nuclear weapon. However, the country’s advancements in nuclear technology and uranium enrichment bring them closer to achieving that goal. Iranian authorities likely feel the need to find alternative methods to intimidate their adversaries, which could mean that creating a nuclear warhead for their ballistic missiles is a possibility they're considering.