On Saturday, October 26, following a missile strike from Iran targeting Israel, the Israeli military launched a retaliatory mission dubbed “Days of Response.” This operation marked a significant turning point, as Israel publicly acknowledged conducting airstrikes inside Iran, a rare move that underscores escalating tensions. The military action came after 26 days during which Iran unleashed a heavy barrage of 181 missiles targeting Israeli military sites. Israel’s response was systematic, focusing exclusively on military sites while avoiding civilian and economically sensitive areas, such as nuclear and oil facilities, to minimize damage and prevent Iranian retaliatory responses.
According to the Israeli narrative, the attack was executed in three phases, each designed for specific military objectives. The first phase targeted Iranian radar and air defense systems, aiming to weaken air defenses and pave the way for subsequent strikes. In the second and third phases, Israeli F-35 jets concentrated on key military assets, including ballistic missile production facilities, surface-to-air missile sites, and drone manufacturing centers. These strikes were calculated to undermine Iran’s offensive infrastructure, aiming to reduce its immediate capacity to respond and ensure a greater maneuverability for Israel within Iranian airspace.
Iranian air defense leadership acknowledged the impact on certain military sites across Tehran, Khuzestan, and Ilam, classifying the damage as “limited.” The Iranian military confirmed the deaths of five individuals during the Israeli operation, while Iranian media, including the state-operated “Khabar” network, downplayed the strikes, deeming them “weak attempts” by Israeli drones and asserting that no significant breach of Iranian airspace occurred. The Tasnim News Agency refuted the Israeli claims, arguing that the scale and extent of the Israeli operation were exaggerated, noting that the targets and aircraft involved were fewer than reported in Israeli statements.
The reciprocal strikes between Israel and Iran signal an emerging phase of open strategic posturing, with each side sending calculated messages through its military actions and public statements. Israel portrays its operation “Days of Response” against Iran as a mission to impose temporary deterrence against its adversary. For Iran, the disciplined counter-narrative reflects a balanced effort between maintaining options for future retaliation and avoiding an escalating conflict that could spiral out of control.
In this environment, the potential for miscalculation remains high, and every new development is likely to test the limits of this fragile balance. With both sides indicating readiness for any direct confrontation, their options will be shaped by a complex interplay of military capabilities, regional alliances, and international pressures. The future trajectory will depend on each side’s ability to navigate this high-stakes conflict without crossing thresholds that could lead to a broader and more destabilizing confrontation.
Backlash: Iranian Public Opinion and the Israeli Strike
On October 1, following Iran’s “Honest Promise 2” operation, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Tehran had made a “grave mistake” and would face severe consequences. Netanyahu’s statement conveyed a retaliatory message, raising concerns about escalation, while Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant echoed this rhetoric, emphasizing a “precise” response. During a recent visit to pilots at the Hatzor Air Base, Gallant asserted that the Israeli operation against Iran would demonstrate Israel’s readiness and power to the world.
These statements triggered an immediate reaction in Iran, where public opinion faced the frightening prospect of open conflict, leading to a sharp decline in the Iranian rial and a rise in gold prices as citizens anticipated potential unrest. However, despite the economic indicators, life in Iran continued without visible panic, as most people maintained their daily routines. This contradiction between financial anxiety and general calm highlights the resilience and skepticism of the public accustomed to the looming threat of conflict.
Netanyahu’s messages have long sought to resonate within Iranian society, suggesting that Israelis and Iranians share the same struggle, and that democracy may soon prevail in Iran. This rhetoric has served as a catalyst for Iranian opposition groups hoping for external intervention to destabilize the regime. While some view Israeli strikes as a challenge to Iranian sovereignty, they have instead reinforced a strong internal image of Iran. Footage of Iranian air defense intercepting unidentified targets in the skies over Tehran and other cities was widely circulated, affirming the narrative of Iranian governmental resilience and efficiency rather than weakness. There were no images of destruction at military centers, no evidence of the impact of Israeli missiles on Iranian territory, and no visuals of advanced Israeli jet fighters during the attack. Instead, Iranian media focused on the readiness of its defense systems, transforming what could be seen as provocation into a display of strength. This shift in perception was further exacerbated by images of Iranian missile retaliation against Israel, particularly during the yet-to-be-named operation “Honest Promise 2,” which clearly showcased Tehran’s ability to strike Israeli military targets and the capacity of these missiles to penetrate some of the world’s most advanced air defense systems.
Far from destabilizing the regime, Israeli threats appear to have bolstered national unity and validated Iranian defense strategy in the eyes of its citizens. What could have been a destabilizing act has instead transformed into a rallying point for collective solidarity.
Shifts in Iranian Government Discourse Following the Israeli Strike
The most prominent stance regarding the Israeli attacks came from Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who deemed the Israeli assault a malicious step, arguing that Israel had made a mistake in attempting to exaggerate the consequences of these attacks. Khamenei stated that internally, this event should not be underestimated, insisting that the so-called enemy had miscalculated against Iran and must recognize this. He concluded by affirming that Iranian officials would act according to the interests of the Iranian people.
Khamenei’s statement represents a subtle shift from the previous Iranian narrative, which had downplayed the significance of the Israeli attacks, labeling them as minor in impact. His current remarks raise the possibility of an Iranian response to the attack, especially since this strike represents the first breach of Iranian airspace—targeting even the capital Tehran—since the end of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988. Recognizing the symbolic and strategic weight of this attack, Khamenei’s statements emphasize the necessity for decisive action to address the violation.
To gauge the potential official trajectory for Iran in handling this issue, it is essential to examine the stances of prominent Iranian officials. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has firmly asserted Iran’s right to self-defense under international law, calling for an emergency UN Security Council meeting to address this violation of Iranian sovereignty. He argued that the United States shares culpability with Israel for providing aerial corridors for attacks on Iranian territory. Concurrently, Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf urged the U.S. administration to rein in Israeli provocations, although he simultaneously condemned Washington as complicit in Israeli crimes, categorizing it as the main supporter of such actions.
We should not overlook Araghchi’s visits to 12 regional countries in two weeks; indeed, while the non-public segment of the trip aimed at ensuring regional states do not intervene or allow Israel to use their airspace against Iran, there is an important public aspect—Tehran’s efforts to intensify and unify diplomatic efforts to halt the war in both Gaza and Lebanon.
The shift in Iranian official discourse from denial to affirmation highlights a strategic diplomatic pivot. By raising calls for accountability and considering the U.S. a party to the aggression, it appears Tehran is exerting pressure on Washington to facilitate a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon. The Iranian leadership’s readiness to contemplate a potential retaliatory pause serves as leverage for achieving a ceasefire; in this scenario, Iran can negotiate the potential response it promotes in exchange for a cessation of hostilities in Gaza and Lebanon.
Iran now perceives that priority lies in preserving the structural core of Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, as it believes that the strength of its allies can be restored over time, provided the relentless Israeli war ceases for more than a year.
Iranian President Massoud Bezhakian indicated that Tehran refrained from exercising its legitimate right to retaliate for the violation of Iranian sovereignty following Israel’s assassination of Ismail Haniya on its territory, due to American and Western promises to enforce a ceasefire in Gaza.
Iran views a ceasefire under its auspices by refraining from retaliating against Israel as serving its interests and narrative that it is a capable power in the region, able to exert diplomatic pressure culminating in a cessation of conflict in Gaza and Lebanon.
Future Confrontation Scenarios: Open Conflict or De-Escalation?
Recent Israeli airstrikes on Iranian territory have highlighted critical turning points in the conflict landscape between Iran and Israel, underscoring the fragile nature of their long-standing rivalry. While the strikes may indicate a tactical shift towards breaking the cycle of retaliatory violence, they also risk escalating tensions into a more complex and widespread conflict. This precarious situation is guided by intricate regional alliances, movements by influential international powers in this issue, and advanced military strategies. Below are two prominent scenarios that may emerge from this conflict:
1. De-escalation and Movement Towards a Ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon
The calculated nature of the reciprocal airstrikes targeting military assets with minimal civilian impact or infrastructure targeting may imply implicit restraint from both sides, indicating a mutual desire to contain tensions rather than ignite a broader conflict. For Iran and Israel, both well-equipped for a larger confrontation, this restraint may be an attempt to signal strength without fully committing to an escalating conflict. Both parties understand that significant escalation could not only lead to destabilization within their own borders but also threaten the precarious regional balance.
Several regional dynamics also support the cooling of direct military operations. The United States—approaching its election season—aims to prevent destabilizing events in the Middle East that could affect oil prices, public opinion, and political discourse, thus hindering Kamala Harris’s chances of reaching the White House. Additionally, China’s interests in regional stability align with a de-escalation track; its investments in the Middle East and reliance on uninterrupted energy supplies necessitate a peaceful environment. Moreover, many Arab states are vocal in their preference for stability, increasingly aware of the risks posed by protracted conflicts to economic growth and regional security.
Iran’s disciplined patience might find justification in diplomatic rather than military avenues, particularly concerning ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon. By avoiding immediate confrontation, Tehran seeks to assert that its restraint in retaliation while maintaining regional influence could lead to significant and essential ceasefire agreements in both Gaza and Lebanon.
Iran’s long-standing support for allies like Hezbollah and Hamas remains a cornerstone of its strategy, as Tehran views this alliance as critical to its influence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Through diplomatic pressures and strategic alliances, Iran may seek to limit the ongoing war in Gaza and Lebanon, protecting its allies while asserting a broader regional position. This approach aligns with Iran’s overall policy of exercising influence without direct confrontation, allowing it to shift the dynamics of power over time without committing to an all-encompassing military conflict with Israel.
This approach not only allows for temporary de-escalation but might also enable Iran to pivot towards broader negotiating gains with the United States on more complex nuclear-related issues.
2. Gradual Escalation
Conversely, Iran may choose to escalate its response, driven by a desire to affirm its regional influence and confront Israeli displays of power. Although Iran’s official reaction to the strikes has been measured, with statements from air defense command rather than its elite military forces, this restraint may reflect a readiness for a calculated strike against Israel that could lead to a series of mutual attacks between the two sides. Iranian leaders might weigh various responses, balancing immediate military options against potential diplomatic repercussions.
However, the likelihood of escalation remains if Iranian diplomatic efforts falter. If Israel intensifies its operations in Gaza and Lebanon, Iran may feel compelled to respond more forcefully. While both Iran and Israel are acutely aware of the devastating costs associated with a prolonged conflict, strategic calculations could shift with a single misstep, given the readiness of both sides’ forces and unexpected reactions from regional allies.
