An Israeli air strike on Iran is an escalation without war

Tensions between Israel and Iran have long shaped the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. Recent Israeli air strikes on Iran raise the stakes but don’t necessarily indicate a path toward full-scale war. Israel’s immediate focus is securing its borders, while Iran is centred on regime survival. What we’re witnessing is a recalibration of power, a shift that intensified with Hamas’s attack on 7 October 2023.

As tensions between Israel and Iran continue to simmer, recent developments have sparked questions about the likelihood of a full-scale conflict. While an Israeli strike on Iran may appear to be another provocation, it is unlikely to trigger a regional war. What we are witnessing is a new stage in the longstanding Israel-Iran rivalry for regional dominance. These attacks and strategies are designed to establish a new regional equilibrium, which was disrupted by the Hamas attack last year.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon, and his targeting of Iranian authorities in Syria — as well as operations in Tehran, including the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh — have largely worked in Israel’s favour, weakening the “Axis of Resistance”. While Israel’s tactical successes have contributed to this weakening, the more significant factor is Iran’s limited capacity for action. The Islamic Republic’s overriding goal is to maintain power within its own borders.

Tehran will not tie its political future to the conflicts in Gaza or Israel.

Iran’s primary focus is on its own regime stability, and any direct involvement in a war could jeopardise that. In other words, the future of the Islamic Republic is not tied to the fates of Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran shapes its domestic and foreign policies with the primary aim of retaining its grip on power.

Ultimately, any decision to engage in war must be weighed carefully with the anticipated consequences. As we have seen from Iran’s two measured responses and Israel’s decision to act before the US presidential election on 5 November, both governments are making calculated, deliberate choices. Neither country is responding impulsively or out of panic. Instead, each is allowing time for stable decision-making and international positioning, reducing the immediate risk of war. The diplomatic channels at play appear to be having a stabilising effect, as both sides avoid hasty escalations.

READ: Explosions heard near Iran capital

While its support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah is well-documented, Tehran will not risk its survival for these factions. The Islamic Republic’s foreign policy is driven by a need to show credibility on the international stage while ensuring internal cohesion and stability on a domestic level. That’s why, rather than rushing into war, Iran’s responses to Israeli strikes are calculated and restrained. This approach signals that while it is ready to defend itself, it is not eager for war. The nuclear option, often discussed as a last resort, remains a tool for regime stability rather than a mechanism for offensive warfare.

Strategically, Iran views Iraq as far more valuable than other regional theatres like Lebanon or Yemen. Iraq offers both political influence and economic benefits that Tehran cannot afford to lose. As a neighbouring country with shared religious and cultural ties, Iraq serves as a buffer zone and strategic ally for Iran. A direct conflict with Israel would divert resources that Iran needs desperately to maintain its influence in Iraq. Losing that foothold would be a significant setback for Iran’s regional ambitions, especially as Iraq remains a vital element of its broader Middle Eastern deterrence strategy.

Economically, Iran is already facing immense pressure from crippling sanctions and internal unrest. The country is grappling with soaring inflation, widespread unemployment and a declining currency, all of which have fuelled growing dissatisfaction among the population. For the Iranian regime, preserving domestic economic stability is essential for its survival. Engaging in a full-scale war with Israel would only exacerbate these economic challenges, worsening the already precarious situation at home. Iran’s leaders understand that their political longevity depends on stabilising the economy rather than plunging the nation into further turmoil through war.

Avoiding regional isolation is another key concern for Iran, especially as it looks to maintain its critical alliances with China and Russia and its membership in BRICS to curb the impact of US sanctions. The 25-year economic deal with China provides Iran with much-needed investment and trade opportunities, while Russia’s military and strategic support has been vital in recent years, particularly in the context of the Ukraine conflict. However, a direct confrontation with Israel could jeopardise these relationships. Alienating China and Russia would leave Iran even more isolated on the world stage, a risk Tehran cannot afford to take as it navigates an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape. That’s why the current Islamic Republic Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, has an intense diplomatic agenda throughout the region to influence regional leaders about the risk of conflict and the necessity of stability.

Internally, Iran faces a series of existential challenges that make war with Israel an even more dangerous proposition.

The uncertainty surrounding the leadership transition after Ayatollah Khamenei’s eventual departure is a looming crisis. Coupled with economic instability and a widening generational divide, these internal pressures threaten the long-term stability of the Islamic Republic. Revolutionary regimes often struggle to maintain cohesion as their founding leaders age, and Iran is no exception. These challenges mean that the regime is more focused on ensuring its survival at home than pursuing external conflicts that could accelerate its downfall.

Under Netanyahu, Israel seeks to ensure the security of its nominal borders, particularly with Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. However, he is cautious about escalating the conflict into a full-scale war. The Israeli air strikes are primarily about strategic deterrence, aimed at signalling to Iran that it needs to curb its nuclear ambitions and limit its influence in the region.

READ: Netanyahu tells ultra-Orthodox partners that Gallant may be dismissed after attack on Iran

Israel’s actions are measured; the goal is to create safe zones around itself without becoming embroiled in a prolonged, destabilising conflict. Securing its borders takes precedence over exporting conflict. The country’s primary focus is to maintain control over immediate threats, particularly those posed by Hamas in Gaza and, especially, Hezbollah in Lebanon and its direct attacks inside Israel. A full-scale war would not only strain Israel’s resources, but also risk drawing in global powers, potentially escalating the conflict into a much larger international confrontation. Israel understands that maintaining regional stability is key to its own security, and its strategy is to contain threats close to home rather than engage in broader conflicts.

The occupation state’s air strikes on Iranian targets are thus part of a strategy of strategic deterrence rather than an indication of a desire for full-blown war. They are intended to send a strong message: Israel will not tolerate threats to its security or allow Iran’s nuclear ambitions to go unchecked. However, the strikes are calculated, aimed at showing strength while avoiding actions that could lead to an all-out regional conflict. The goal is to deter Iran from further nuclear development and curb its influence in the region, without pushing the situation beyond control.

Maintaining and strengthening regional alliances is another key consideration for Israel.

In recent years, Israel has been working closely with Gulf states and other regional powers that also view Iran as a destabilising force. Limited military actions allow Israel to continue nurturing these alliances without triggering a wider conflict that could jeopardise the delicate balance of power in the Middle East. These relationships are vital to Israel’s long-term security strategy, and avoiding a broader conflict helps preserve them.

Political leadership in Israel, particularly under Prime Minister Netanyahu, is tied closely to security concerns. His political survival hinges on how effectively he manages the threat from Iran and maintains Israel’s security. By taking a firm stance against Iranian aggression and reaffirming the US alliance, Netanyahu consolidates his domestic position, showing the Israeli public that he is committed to protecting the nation. His leadership during these tense times not only addresses external threats, but also reinforces his role as the guardian of Israel’s safety.

When examining the political dynamics of Israel and Iran, it becomes evident that the leaders of both nations tend to prioritise confrontation over diplomacy to reinforce their internal power. Their rivalry serves as a tool to secure domestic support and maintain authority. However, a large-scale conflict could backfire, damaging their internal objectives as growing numbers within their populations begin to question their leadership in different ways.

The conflict between Iran and Israel is fundamentally a struggle for regional hegemony.

This new stage of their confrontation will likely involve an exchange of limited, yet coordinated, attacks that engage regional and global powers. Unfortunately, the future for Palestine looks bleak, as both nations will likely exploit division and conflict in the region to further their own agendas.

OPINION: CNN has just tried to garner even more impunity for Israel and its genocide

Additionally, the international power struggle adds another layer of complexity. The United States, Russia and China are all vying for dominance, and this conflict could potentially provoke a major clash between these world powers. Currently, global attention is focused on Ukraine and Asia, and there is no clear consensus among these nations regarding the future of the Middle East.

A large-scale conflict between Israel and Iran will only occur if one country perceives that it can shift the regional balance of power decisively in its favour, and if it is backed by one of the major global powers.

For now, Israel is likely to continue pressuring the US and the international community to impose stricter sanctions and further isolate Iran from the global economy. Netanyahu will also pressure the US for more military and defence equipment. Iran, on the other hand, will concentrate its political efforts on regional diplomacy while it manages the three significant internal crises it faces: leadership uncertainty, economic instability and generational divides. In response, Iran may push its nuclear programme forward as a means of weakening the US-Israel relationship and reducing sanctions.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.