After Israel bombed the Iranian embassy in Damascus on April 1, Iran launched two retaliatory attacks against Israel. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh is assassinated in Tehran., Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallahand Revolutionary Guards General Abbas Nilforushan In the attack, many of the missiles and drones were intercepted by Israeli and allied air defenses, resulting in limited damage and no Israeli casualties. Israeli and U.S. officials have widely praised these achievements as evidence of both countries' superior military capabilities and advanced missile defense systems. US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan concluded that Iran's October retaliation:defeated and powerless”
This is a fascinating self-congratulatory narrative that plays into the stereotypes about the superiority of Western military technology among some security experts. However, this interpretation is a dangerous misreading of the situation. my own the study Research on cycles of revenge in international crises suggests an alternative explanation. Iran's low-impact response is not a reflection of incompetence but a deliberate escalation management strategy designed to limit damage to Israel and prevent an escalation of a revenge spiral into regional wars.
No matter how much Israel and the United States try to downplay the military significance of Iran's retaliation, new evidence suggests that the second response in October was more successful than initially expected, and that Iran suffered significant damage. This suggests that he possesses the ability to give.
According to the report, Iranian missiles hit several IDF targets despite Israel's multi-layered missile defense system. satellite image The bombing of Nevatim Air Base, home to an Israel Defense Forces F-35 squadron, revealed as many as 30 missile strikes, casting doubt on Iran's narrative of military incompetence. and based on that US estimateseven before regional tensions escalated in October 2023, Tehran had already acquired Israeli, US assets, oil production The possibility of additional attacks by Iran of similar or greater magnitude remains in the region.
A more likely explanation for the limited impact of Iran's retaliatory strikes is that Iran's leadership is engaged in a deliberate escalation management strategy. Iran uses both. back channel Communication and public messages choreographer The methods and targets of retaliation. By allowing Israel and its allies to prepare and evacuate, Iran is demonstrating its determination to fight back while minimizing casualties. this is a revenge strategy has been used for a long time Iran has been trying to prevent a limited conflict from boiling over since the assassination of Revolutionary Guards commander Qasem Soleimani.
Second, the long delay between Israel's assassination and Iran's retaliatory attack gave Israel and its allies ample time. take defensive measures. Despite facing domestic pressure for swift retaliation, Iranian leadership chose to delay the response rather than follow the domestic political expediency of immediate retaliation. This delay should be interpreted as a signal for costly suppression.
Third, although some political leaders may classify Iranian retaliation as indiscriminatethe evidence suggests otherwise. Iran deliberately avoids civilian targets and focuses on military installations. This targeting strategy is believed to be aimed at reducing Israeli civilian casualties and subsequent public desire for revenge, and preventing further escalation.
of domestic sentiment In Iran, there is no doubt that its leaders are being forced to take retaliatory actions in revenge and in support of their allies in the “Axis of Resistance.” The Iranian government is acutely aware that a low death toll could be perceived as a sign of military weakness, especially after April's retaliation. However, Iranian leaders continue to adopt a consistent strategy of restraint, fully aware of the potential for military embarrassment. This willingness to risk appearing weak is itself a costly signal of their intent to defuse tensions.
Suppression strategies only work if both parties are committed to escalation control. If Israel and the United States want to de-escalate, a wise move would be for Israel to respond to Iranian restraint with a proportionate response to its military targets and avoid escalation to its oil fields and nuclear facilities. The United States should use its influence to urge Israel's allies to exercise restraint.
But if Israel and its allies consistently respond with escalation to Iranian restraint, Tehran will be forced to conclude that Israel and the United States place little value on peace. This could force Iran to resort to more drastic deterrence measures, such as exceeding acquisition thresholds. nuclear capability — Good results within reach of Iran And that's exactly what policymakers in Washington and Tel Aviv are trying to prevent.
X Zhang is an International Security Fellow in the Social Sciences and Humanities at Stanford University's Center for International Security Cooperation.
