Beyond this, the Iranian retaliation enabled the country’s Islamic regime to indicate that despite facing considerable opposition at home, it is still sufficiently powerful and resilient to be robust in its defence internally and externally.
In many ways, Israel has mirrored the Iranian position. Its attack on an air base in Isfahan that houses Iranian nuclear facilities was limited in scope and impact. It was designed to send a strong message that Iran’s most secure military sites were within Israel’s reach and vulnerable to its power, and that should Tehran escalate, Israel (the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East) can exact a heavy toll on it. Further, besieged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to demonstrate to the Israeli public and beyond that despite being bogged down in Gaza and unable to neutralise Iranian proxies in the region, none of the Arab states, several of which have normalised relations with Israel, actively endorsed or backed the Iranian operation.
A missile is on display with a sign on it reading in Farsi: “Death to Israel” in front of a mosque in the shape of Dome of the Rock of Jerusalem at an entrance of the Quds town west of the capital Tehran, Iran.Credit: AP
For the time being, these tit-for-tat operations have resulted in a stalemate, with each side having achieved a degree of face-saving to play down the prospects of a broader conflict. It seems both sides have tested their capabilities and vulnerabilities to a point that for now, they may be deterred from engaging in a much-feared war.
But this lull does not necessarily spell the end of this long-running shadowy war. To the contrary, Israel’s Isfahan attack was followed by a huge explosion in an Iranian-backed Popular Mobilisation Forces base in Iraq, killing a pro-Iranian militia and injuring seven. The US has denied any involvement and Israel has, as usual, said nothing. But US sources have reported Israel to be the perpetrator. Iran can be expected to respond, but as before through one of its regional affiliated forces. Thus, the cycle of hostility between the two nations continues.
While an escalation in conflict between Iran and Israel would be devastating for either nation, in the current environment, one has far more to lose than the other. With both nations putting their cards on the table, the danger of a regional war has diminished. But the potential for it through intentional action or miscalculation still exists in a highly volatile region that has often defied predictions.
Amin Saikal is emeritus professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian studies at the
Australian National University, adjunct professor of social sciences at the University of
Western Australia, and author of Iran Rising: the survival and future of the Islamic Republic.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.