Although Israel has signaled it is prepared to escalate further if provoked, the Biden Administration’s influence has moderated Tel Aviv’s actions.
Israel’s missile barrage against Iran marks a new phase in the simmering conflict between the two nations, signaling a potential escalation in their long-standing rivalry. This latest exchange is part of a series of tit-for-tat attacks, with Tel Aviv and Tehran now engaging in direct military strikes for the first time, raising fears of a broader and more intense confrontation. There is concern that the conflict may deepen — both in the scale of violence and in its geographic scope, potentially drawing in other nations in the region. Reports suggest that Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, opted for a restrained response, under pressure from the United States. Israel’s attack was deliberately limited: It did not target Iran’s critical oil infrastructure or its sensitive nuclear facilities. Instead, the operation focused on military targets, avoiding civilian areas, and minimising casualties. The missile strikes resulted in the deaths of four Iranian soldiers but caused few civilian casualties.
This restrained response contrasts sharply with the aggressive retaliation Netanyahu had initially threatened following Iran’s missile attack on Israeli military bases in October. Although Israel has signaled it is prepared to escalate further if provoked, the Biden Administration’s influence has moderated Tel Aviv’s actions. Meanwhile, Washington is urging Tehran to refrain from retaliating and has been rallying international partners to push for de-escalation. Iran’s reaction has been cautious. While downplaying the impact of Israel’s strikes, it maintains its right to respond. Like Israel, Iran is weighing the risks of an uncontrolled escalation, which could spiral into a more destructive conflict. However, Iran cannot afford to appear as if it is capitulating to Israeli and American pressure, creating a delicate balancing act for Tehran’s leadership.
In both capitals, internal debates rage on how to handle the other. In Israel, hawks advocate for a more aggressive stance, arguing that confronting Iran’s regional proxies in Gaza and Lebanon is not enough — the source of the problem, they say, lies in Tehran itself. This has put more moderate voices in Israel on the defensive. In Iran, the hardliners — who have long dominated policy discussions, with calls for Israel’s destruction — face opposition from moderates urging a more cautious approach. Optimists see a glimmer of restraint in Iran’s recent statements, which prioritise ceasefire agreements in Gaza and Lebanon over direct retaliation against Israel. This stance allows Tehran to occupy the moral high ground, emphasising the need to end violence in Gaza and Lebanon while subtly pressuring Israel. For now, the restraint exhibited by both sides, even if tactical, underscores the ongoing role of diplomacy in preventing a wider war in the Middle East. The Biden Administration’s efforts have, for the moment, forestalled a major escalation. However, as the US presidential election approaches, its influence may wane, particularly in its ability to curb Netanyahu’s military ambitions in Gaza and Lebanon. As November nears, both Israel and Iran are likely to adopt a wait-and-watch approach, assessing the election’s outcome before making any definitive moves.
