By Han Jianwei
In the early hours of October 26 local time, Israel deployed approximately 100 aircraft to carry out precision strikes on multiple military targets in Iran. This action comes as a result of Israel's repeated vows of retaliation following Iran's missile attack on Israeli territory on October 1.
However, following Israel's retaliatory strike, the general reaction from the international community was one of relief. Overall, this strike carries strong symbolic significance, because Israel refrained from targeting critical Iranian assets such as oil facilities and nuclear sites, indicating that it does not seek to escalate the situation into a full-scale war with Iran. However, now that the ball is back in Iran's court, how Iran will respond has become an intriguing issue.
From Israel's perspective, over 20 days had passed since Iran's missile attack on Israeli territory and the scope and targets of this strike were carefully considered, particularly with extensive communication and coordination with the US. It is widely believed that the Israeli government has consistently sought to draw the US into directly engaging in a war with Iran, though it is not in the interest of the US. With the Ukraine crisis still unresolved and the US strategic focus shifting toward the Asia-Pacific, the US is no longer in a position to engage in another war in the Middle East. Therefore, Israel's interests do not necessarily align with those of the US. The recent sharpening and publicizing of tensions between Benjamin Netanyahu and Joe Biden reflect the conflict between US and Israeli core concerns. The pressure from the US is the main reason for Israel to keep restraint in its retaliation against Iran. Meanwhile, Israel, engaged in multiple fronts, finds it difficult to conduct a comprehensive strike against distant Iran.
From Iran's perspective, it is prepared with a dual strategy to respond to Israel's strikes. On one hand, Iran has issued stern warnings to make it clear to Israel that any strong retaliation will result in severe consequences. Iran's missile retaliation against Israel has also preliminarily demonstrated its formidable military capabilities, even compelling Israel to introduce the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) to enhance its air defense capabilities. On the other hand, Iran has maintained indirect communication with Israel, indicating that if retaliatory strikes are kept within acceptable limits, Iran may forgo further retaliation. These strategies have also played a role in Israel's eventual decision to opt for a symbolic retaliation.
In addition, Iran's recent diplomatic efforts have played a certain role, particularly in strengthening communication with several Arab countries. This includes pressuring some nations regarding the issue of opening their airspace to Israel and conducting military exercises in the Red Sea region in cooperation with Saudi Arabia. These measures have to some extent hindered Israel's strikes against Iran.
Therefore, although Iran has stated that it will soon take corresponding action in response to Israel, its main objective is to restore its reputation and provide an explanation to its people. It is not probable for the conflict between the two countries to escalate into a full-scale war. However, the hope for a ceasefire in the short term remains very slim. The two sides are bound to continue their maneuvering amidst a climate of deep-seated hostility, with limited military clashes likely to occur in the future. This poses a challenge to the overall national strength and public sentiment of both sides as well as the dynamics of regional and major power rivalry.
Generally speaking, since the outbreak of the latest round of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict last year, the attitudes of the parties involved toward the war have been subtly changing. With little benefit to be gained from continuing the conflict for either side, all parties, including Israel and Iran, hope to conclude the hostilities with dignity.
How to conclude the conflict with dignity has become a key issue, as both sides view attacks on their territory as an affront and are compelled to retaliate, whether the response is symbolic or substantive. This has led the two sides into a cycle of retaliation. Meanwhile, another significant uncertainty is that the US election has currently entered its final stages. If Donald Trump wins the election, his extreme animosity toward Iran could potentially incite Israel to escalate its conflict with Iran, making it even less likely for the Israel-Iran conflict to conclude in the short term.
(The author is an associate professor at the Middle East Studies Institute, Shanghai International Studies University.)
Editor's note: Originally published on china.com.cn, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.
