Tensions Escalate Between Israel and Iran: Will De-escalation Follow?
In the aftermath of Israel’s airstrikes on Iran this past Saturday, U.S. officials have called for restraint from both nations. Despite these appeals, analysts remain skeptical about the prospects of lasting peace. The exchange of attacks highlights a growing risk of prolonged conflict, with both sides navigating a complex web of retaliation and strategy.
Recent Strikes and Responses
On Saturday, Israel launched what it described as “precise strikes on military targets in Iran.” This action followed an October 1 missile attack from Iran, which was seen as a response to the deaths of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and others. A senior U.S. administration official expressed hope that these strikes would mark the end of direct confrontations, but events on the ground suggest otherwise.
Iran claimed that the Israeli airstrikes targeted military sites in Tehran, Khuzestan, and Ilam, causing “limited damage.” Despite the severity of these claims, Iranian media portrayed a sense of normalcy in Tehran, with experts suggesting this move was an attempt to project calm. Iran’s foreign ministry condemned the strikes as a “clear violation” of international law, asserting that Iran has the right and responsibility to defend itself.
U.S. officials have underscored the precision of Israel’s strikes, noting that key infrastructure was deliberately spared. Reports indicate that Israel’s security cabinet held extensive discussions before launching the attack, weighing its scope and potential repercussions. Following the strikes, the U.S. National Security Council’s Sean Savett urged Iran to cease its attacks on Israel, with the hope of breaking the cycle of violence.
Analyzing the Path Forward
While some experts view Iran’s tempered response as a sign of potential de-escalation, others see it as a calculated effort to maintain its image. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, suggested that Iran’s muted reaction might signal a strategic decision to avoid escalation. Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, supported this view, emphasizing that Iran’s restraint could be a move to encourage U.S. pressure on Israel to exercise caution.
Nevertheless, there are doubts about whether this fragile calm will hold. Israeli officials have previously ignored U.S. calls for restraint, as seen in Gaza and southern Lebanon. Adding to the tension, the U.S. issued a letter on October 13 demanding Israel improve humanitarian conditions in Gaza within 30 days or risk a reduction in military aid. This demand highlights growing pressure on Israel from its closest ally.
Experts believe that the chance of sustained peace remains slim. Danny Citrinowicz, a research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, warned that the situation has brought Israel and Iran closer than ever to direct conflict. He stressed that the next move is Iran’s to make, with the choice to retaliate or consider the strikes as a conclusion to this episode of aggression.
Potential pause
While there is potential for a pause in hostilities, analysts caution that any lull will likely be short-lived. Parsi recalled that Israel’s April actions against Hezbollah leaders prompted further confrontations, despite initial restraint from Iran. This historical pattern indicates that deeper tensions between Israel and Iran persist below the surface.
Looking ahead, experts predict that future exchanges of fire are inevitable. H.A. Hellyer, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argued that neither side is likely to be deterred by previous escalations. He warned that relying on escalation as a path to de-escalation is a “serious misconception.” As Israel seeks to deter Iran and its regional proxies, it’s clear that this strategy has its limits.
The Israel-Iran conflict is far from over. While diplomatic pressure from the U.S. may briefly influence decision-making, the underlying drivers of the conflict remain unresolved. Experts agree that future clashes could be even more intense, further destabilizing an already volatile region.