Follow us on social

Will Iran retaliate?

Will Iran retaliate?

Europeans are urging restraint while the regime seeks to avoid normalization of attacks on its own soil

Analysis | Middle East

As Iran ponders its response to Israel’s October 26 aerial attack — conducted in retaliation for Iran’s strikes on Israel on October 1, the latest in an escalating spiral between the two foes — European leaders called on Tehran to forgo yet another response.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer urged both Iran and Israel to “show restraint” and “avoid further regional escalation,” but singled out Iran as the party that should not respond. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, in a similar vein, warned Iran that “such massive escalatory responses cannot go on forever. This has to stop now and presents an opportunity for a peaceful development in the Middle East.” Scholz took care to emphasize Israel’s “precise and targeted” attack in contrast to the “massive missile attack against Israel” (by Iran).

These urgings, however, may go unheeded. For one, despite Scholz’s attempts to contrast the targeted Israeli strike with what he implied was reckless Iranian action, one casualty from falling debris resulted from the Iranian missile attack, while at least four people (reportedly all military personnel) were killed in the Israeli strikes on military targets in Tehran, Khuzestan, and Elam.

Although there were no immediate vows of vengeance in Tehran — a contrast to what happened after Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus in April and the assassination of the Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July — its leadership has not ruled out retaliation. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei seemed to delegate the precise nature and scope of the response to military commanders. According to Amwaj.media, he insisted that while Israel “seeks to exaggerate the attack for its own goals, it would be wrong for us to downplay it.”

Herein lies the key to understanding Iran’s predicament: it’s a delicate balancing act between the need to avoid an all-out war with Israel (and, potentially, the United States), and the political unpalatability of accepting the strikes on Tehran as a new normal — the first such strikes on Iran’s territory since the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Most Iranians are understandably wary of a broader conflict and would rather focus on the economy. Witness accounts from Tehran suggest that, in the immediate aftermath of the Israeli attack, life went back to normal, demonstrating the population’s resilience and perhaps hopes that a further escalation may still be avoided.

However, refraining from action would project weakness to Iran’s allies in the region and to its own population: there is a fear that a normalization of attacks on Tehran and other Iranian cities would further erase whatever red lines existed and encourage Israel to treat Tehran the same way it does Damascus and Beirut; i.e., bomb it at will.

While the strikes have so far only concerned the military targets, what is to dissuade, in this reading, Israel from targeting the economic infrastructure next time in the absence of a credible deterrence? A return to the “shadow war” between Iran and Israel, the status quo before October 7, 2023, may now seem insufficient from Tehran’s point of view given Israel’s increasing willingness to take risks and its weakening of Iran’s key allies, such as the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah.

These considerations suggest that some kind of Iranian retaliation by Iran is probable. A search for a restored deterrence also increases pressure on Ayatollah Khamenei to reconsider his fatwa (religious edict) that outlaws the development of weapons of mass destruction. With each new escalation, public sentiment appears to move towards favoring the weaponization of Iran’s nuclear program as the ultimate deterrent. Short of the nuclear option, delivering on Tehran’s threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, the key artery for the world oil trade, is another card Tehran holds up its sleeve in the event that the conflict escalates further.

There is, however, a window of opportunity to avoid dreadful outcomes. By choosing to downplay the latest Israeli attack and delay its own response, Tehran may be able to leverage Western anxiety over the possibility of further escalation for a diplomatic breakthrough on Gaza and Lebanon.

Accordingly, if Western leaders like the UK’s Starmer and Germany’s Scholz are truly concerned about the prospects for an ever-widening war in the Middle East, they should not simply call on Iran not to respond to Israel’s attacks, but also work diligently towards securing the single most important outcome — ceasefires in Gaza, and then Lebanon. That would not only stop the killing of civilians (more than 43,000 and counting in Gaza and, at a minimum, 1,200 in Lebanon) and the release of the Israeli hostages still being held by Hamas. It would also enable Tehran, by stopping the escalatory tit for tat, to claim a diplomatic success and remove the pressure to respond to Israel militarily.

So far, the UK and Germany have provided nearly unconditional support for Israel’s right to self-defense while paying only lip service to the need to respect international law and the laws of war in its exercise. This will have to change, lest Starmer and Scholz’s one-sided exhortations to Iran will keep falling on deaf ears and condemning Europe to greater strategic and diplomatic irrelevance.


Top photo credit: Iranian men are standing together under a portrait of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while participating in a rally commemorating Eid al-Ghadir in Tehran, Iran, on June 25, 2024, during Iran's 2024 early Presidential elections campaigns rally. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)
Analysis | Middle East
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less
SPD Germany Ukraine
Top Photo: Lars Klingbeil (l-r, SPD), Federal Minister of Finance, Vice-Chancellor and SPD Federal Chairman, and Bärbel Bas (SPD), Federal Minister of Labor and Social Affairs and SPD Party Chairwoman, bid farewell to the members of the previous Federal Cabinet Olaf Scholz (SPD), former Federal Chancellor, Nancy Faeser, Saskia Esken, SPD Federal Chairwoman, Karl Lauterbach, Svenja Schulze and Hubertus Heil at the SPD Federal Party Conference. At the party conference, the SPD intends to elect a new executive committee and initiate a program process. Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Does Germany’s ruling coalition have a peace problem?

Europe

Surfacing a long-dormant intra-party conflict, the Friedenskreise (peace circles) within the Social Democratic Party of Germany has published a “Manifesto on Securing Peace in Europe” in a stark challenge to the rearmament line taken by the SPD leaders governing in coalition with the conservative CDU-CSU under Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Although the Manifesto clearly does not have broad support in the SPD, the party’s leader, Deputy Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil, won only 64% support from the June 28-29 party conference for his performance so far, a much weaker endorsement than anticipated. The views of the party’s peace camp may be part of the explanation.

keep readingShow less
Tucker Carlson Pezeshkian
Top photo credit: The Tucker Carlson show screengrab (TCN)

Tucker Carlson 'platforming' Iranian president is an American tradition

Media

Over the Independence Day holiday, Tucker Carlson announced that he had conducted an interview with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.

Dan Crenshaw immediately attacked him. “Nothing screams July 4th like platforming the leader of a terror state that labels us ‘The Great Satan,” the hawkish Republican congressman shared on X. Fellow rightwing hawks and frequent Carlson critics, Senator Ted Cruz and radio host Mark Levin, piled on, admonishing Carlson for daring to do this.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.