A team of rescuers removes the body of a victim of the attack that took place in Jaffa, near Tel Aviv, on Oct. 1, 2024, shortly before the missile salvos sent by Iran on Israel. The attack was claimed by Hamas the following day. (Credit: Jack Guez/AFP)
It was the riskiest move yet. On Tuesday evening, nearly 200 ballistic missiles were launched at Israel from Iran, on orders from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) framed the strike as retaliation for the assassinations of Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31, and Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and Revolutionary Guard Commander Abbas Nilforoushan, both killed in violent Israeli airstrikes on Beirut’s southern suburbs on Sept. 27.
After Iran's swift attack, which the Israeli military claims neither killed nor injured, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced on X that Tehran’s response was complete: “Our action is over, unless the Israeli regime provokes further retaliation.”
Yet by choosing to strike Israel directly for a second time — after firing over 300 missiles and drones last April — this time in a faster and more devastating fashion and without warning, Iran risks being drawn into a war it has managed to avoid for almost a year, one that could bring it face to face with the United States. Has Tehran taken an ill-calculated gamble?
The only way to restore deterrence?
The Islamic Republic’s greatest fear is being drawn into direct conflict with Washington. Yet a war between Israel and Iran could inadvertently pull the U.S. into the confrontation. The White House has already reaffirmed its unwavering support for Israel following Tuesday night's missile strike. "Make no mistake, the United States stands fully, fully, fully behind Israel," President Joe Biden said. Washington pledged to coordinate with Tel Aviv in response and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared on Tuesday night, “Iran made a serious mistake tonight and will pay the price.”
Tehran may have gambled that the U.S. would seek to avoid a full-blown regional war in the lead-up to the Nov. 5 presidential election — an outcome that could benefit Republican candidate Donald Trump in a tight race. This risky calculation mirrors Israel’s recent actions, as it has repeatedly crossed red lines in recent months. Meanwhile, Iran has consistently shown a determination to avoid a regional war, despite the attacks on its interests and its “Axis of Resistance.” On Wednesday, Biden appeared to lower the likelihood of an overwhelming Israeli response, stating his opposition to Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israel's security cabinet decided on Wednesday to respond "harshly" to yesterday's Iranian attack, according to the Israel Broadcasting Authority.
The Israeli response remains inevitable, however, and could undermine Iran’s objectives with Tuesday's attack. "If Israel mounts a significant attack on Iran — which looks highly likely — a taboo will have been broken, and it is reasonable to expect that direct Israeli and perhaps US attacks on Iran will become a more regular occurrence going forward," said Michael Sight, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, on his X account. Could Tuesday’s attack prove counterproductive?
Limiting the provocation to a message from Iran to Israel
Attempting to minimize its actions to avoid an open war, Iran sought to frame its attack as a right to defend itself, despite Israel claiming that most missiles launched were intercepted. According to U.S. officials, a few projectiles slipped through the Israeli defense net, hitting only the Nevatim base in the Negev desert and causing minor damage. In addition to two minor injuries, one Palestinian refugee from Gaza in Jericho died in the attack, killed by debris from an intercepted missile.
On Tuesday evening, Reuters reported that Tehran had given the United States advance notice of the imminent attack, as it did last April, though Iran retracted this the following day. However, Tehran did not deny that it had exchanged information with Arab countries and Russia prior to its operation, allowing a few hours to prepare a coordinated defense involving the United States, the United Kingdom, and Jordan.
These signals suggest an attempt to limit the provocation to a single message: any attack on an Iranian interest in the region will be avenged.
"Iran’s attack had no strategic purpose beyond the hope that Israel might think twice next time it wanted to attack Iranian assets or allies," Afshon Ostovar, an Iranian military expert at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, told the Wall Street Journal. Above all, the Islamic Republic aimed to re-establish its deterrence power. Faced with the military and security setbacks accumulated by Hezbollah in the past two weeks, including the assassinations of its leaders, the Islamic Republic appeared passive amid the rout of its principal proxy.
In recent months, Iran's threats of revenge sounded increasingly hollow, while the policy of "strategic patience" had become synonymous with impotence. Reformist President Massoud Pezeshkian's statements from New York, where he attended the U.N. General Assembly last week, were poorly received as Lebanon experienced its deadliest day since the civil war under Israeli fire. The Iranian president said he was "ready to sit down with the Europeans and Americans for dialogue and negotiation."
Responding to frustration
Dissatisfied with Iran's perceived inaction amid Israeli strikes, hardliners within the regime, supported by certain proxies, expressed frustration over what they saw as abandonment. They once again urged an end to Israel crossing new red lines and called for a direct retaliatory strike. The April attack, viewed as largely symbolic, allowed Israel to boast about a "Soviet" interception rate, escalating its provocations. While Iran had threatened to attack Israel directly if its interests or citizens were targeted, it had yet to respond to the assassination of Ismail Hanieh in Tehran at the end of July, an event regarded as a significant affront.
With Tuesday's attack, Iran appeared to have assuaged a base that was beginning to lose faith, as celebratory gunfire erupted in Lebanon and other countries in the region, bolstering its reputation among affiliates. Tehran seems to have coordinated its assault with elements of the "axis of resistance," particularly since Hamas claimed responsibility for a gunman attack that killed at least seven people in Jaffa just half an hour before the missile strikes. This act could be seen as a response to an Israeli security apparatus praised for its effectiveness in recent deadly assaults in Lebanon, which have sown paranoia within Hezbollah and possibly as far as Iran regarding potential infiltration.
At the same time, reports of a cyberattack in Israel was reported, along with two explosions near the Israeli embassy in Copenhagen and gunfire targeting the Israeli diplomatic mission in Stockholm that evening.
In New York, Iran's reformist president hinted that a diplomatic path might be welcomed to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for a rollback of its nuclear program. With this dual strategy, the Islamic Republic may be positioning itself for potential cease-fire negotiations in Gaza or Lebanon, which could help alleviate the uncertainty surrounding the regional conflict. It remains to be seen how the shadow war between Tehran and Tel Aviv will evolve and whether it will continue to unfold behind the scenes.
This article originally appeared in French L'Orient Le-Jour.