Preparing for Iran's response: Tehran's three basic assumptions

By Raz Zimmt

The recent escalation of Iranian threats over the past two days, including statements by Iran's supreme leader, may suggest that Iran's dilemma between two bad options – responding militarily to Israel despite significant risks or refraining from responding at the cost of further eroding its deterrence – has been resolved in favor of a military reaction, although its timing and precise nature remain to be determined.

This decision may indicate three key assumptions guiding Iran's current strategy:

A. The absence of a response to the most severe attack on Iran since the Iran-Iraq war could, in the long run, endanger Iran more than a military reaction despite the substantial damage to its air defense systems and missile production capabilities.

Iranian leaders may be concerned that failure to respond would encourage Israel to carry out future attacks against Iran, including its nuclear program.

B. In Iran's view, it is still possible to re-establish its deterrent capability against Israel and alter the rules of engagement through action that demonstrates its ability to inflict damage using the significant ballistic capabilities it still retains.

C. Iran might believe that it can still influence Israel's anticipated response to any Iranian action (which could deter Israel from moving to a broader campaign targeting Iranian infrastructure, regime symbols, and nuclear sites) by responding differently, for example by launching attacks from outside Iranian territory, relying on its proxies (proxies) and targeting specific locations within Israel.

However, these underlying assumptions may be false and could reflect an overestimation of Iran's remaining capabilities (including those targeted by Israel) or an underestimation of Israel's intentions and capabilities.

These miscalculations could lead to further escalation between the two states.

Source: INSS -The Institute for National Security Studies