For now, Israel and Iran seem to have stopped bombing each other, with most Middle East analysts breathing a sigh of relief.
Their recent and dramatic escalation began with the Israelis blowing up an Iranian consulate building in Damascus, killing several senior Iranian generals in the process.
The Iranian response was to send 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 110-120 ballistic missiles to Israel. Almost all were intercepted, but four missiles got through.
Most were aimed at Israel’s Nevatim Air Base in the Negev. The Israelis said there was “light” damage. Iranian state TV described them as “heavy blows”.
Although the recent escalation has now abated, its ramifications are still being felt, not least because this confrontation sought to redefine the ‘rules of engagement’.
It also acted as a harbinger of potential future conflicts and functioned as a test of mutual understandings, subtly facilitated by Washington, the effects of which may become evident in the near future.
A shifting stance
Iran’s message with its drone and missile bombardment was to show that it was capable of targeting and reaching precise locations in Israel.
This marked a shift from Iran’s previous stance of “strategic patience” to one of “active deterrence”. It also signals a potential move away from proxy conflicts—in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen—to a direct confrontation with Israel.
Read more: From strategic patience to sincere promise: Where will Iran's strike take the region?
Although very few landed, Tehran’s message with its launches was clear: any direct threat to Iranian interests would elicit a targeted response against Israel.
When Israel targeted the Iranian consulate, it presumed that Iran would limit its response to its ongoing proxy warfare. Instead, Tehran viewed the attack as a direct assault on its sovereignty and retaliated against Israel directly.
