Dr. Ashraf Badr: Israel appears, through its strike on Iran, to be unwilling to escalate the situation into a full-scale war

Yasser Manna: Israel and Iran are currently working to reshape the rules of engagement in the Middle East

Dawoud Kuttab: The Israeli strike reassures that matters will not escalate, and the Iranian options are between a limited response or complete abstention

Muhammad Abu Allan Daraghmeh: Israel cannot bring about a fundamental change in the regional balance of power without American support

Mohammad Hawash: The balance of power between Iran and Israel is not affected by a single strike, and what happened was within the framework of mutual deterrence operations.

Imad Moussa: Things will remain within the limits of the accepted rules of engagement without entering into a comprehensive war in the region

Samir Anabtawi: US pressure on Israel to avoid a broad escalation before the elections is one of the reasons for reducing the strike

After 25 days of anticipation of the Israeli response to the Iranian attack, the Israeli strike came in the context of a struggle between Israel and Iran to strengthen the deterrence strategy, but the strike was reduced, contrary to the expectations promoted by Israel during the past period.

In separate interviews with “I,” writers, political analysts, and specialists in Israeli affairs believe that Israel, despite its keenness to strike Iran, was cautious due to American pressures that fear a strong Iranian response that would get things out of control, especially since the United States is approaching the presidential elections next week.

The writers and specialists point out that Israel's reliance on American support was clear, as this attack would not have happened as easily without coordination with the United States and its logistical support.

They believe that the limited Israeli strike on Iran also came within the framework of international balances governed by common interests with the United States, which avoids escalation with Iran due to the complexities of the regional scene.

They point out that Iran may avoid direct response in the coming period and be satisfied with indirect operations through its allies in the region, as Tehran prefers to use direct and indirect threats to curb the effects of the strike and enhance its regional influence without being drawn into a comprehensive military confrontation, which is consistent with its strategic interest in maintaining the rise of its regional influence.

The writers and experts point out that Iran and Israel seem keen to avoid an open confrontation, while Israel continues to target Iran's allies in the region as part of its strategy to limit Tehran's influence, although matters may slide in the future towards a regional war.

Limited strike reveals Israel's dependence on US support

Dr. Ashraf Badr, writer, political analyst and expert on Israeli affairs, believes that the Israeli strike on Iran comes as a message to restore the deterrence system that was shaken by the recent Iranian attacks at the beginning of this month.

Badr points out that Israel, despite carrying out this strike, seems unwilling to escalate the situation into a full-scale war, as Israeli leaders face significant American pressure, in addition to fear of a strong Iranian response that could lead to a large-scale escalation.

Therefore, Badr believes that Israel chose to lower the ceiling of the strike to be limited to re-establishing deterrence and sending a clear message to Iran that its capabilities reach it without seeking to blow things up.

Badr explains that this strike, for which Israel has explicitly claimed responsibility for the first time, aims to break the barrier of hesitation and confirm its military ability to directly target Iran.

Badr points out that, however, the limited strike reveals the extent of Israel's dependence on US support, which limits its ability to achieve its strategic goals with complete freedom.

International and regional balances

Badr points out that international and regional balances, led by the strategic American ally, restrict Israel's ability to launch a comprehensive strike that could change the balance of power in the region.

Badr believes that Iran was able, through diplomacy and through direct and indirect threats directed at Israel via its allies in the region, to absorb and reduce the effects of the Israeli strike, which prompted Israel to reduce the intensity of the attack, despite the statements made by Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant, describing the strike as being “deadly and fatal.”

According to Badr, whether this reduction was due to American pressure or to Israel’s fear of strong Iranian reactions, the result is the same, which is that the strike that was launched was calculated and reduced, which reflects the existence of restrictions imposed on Israel resulting from international balances that prevent a comprehensive strategic change in the region.

The risk of regional escalation remains

Badr believes that the risk of regional escalation still exists, and depends on the nature of the expected Iranian response. If Iran responds in the future and targets Israeli military sites with a limited response, this could lead to the continuation of the cycle of mutual attacks without a comprehensive escalation, while if the Iranian response is strong due to the extent of the damage caused by the Israeli strike, this could lead to a broader escalation.

He points out that the expected Iranian response will come within controlled limits, and that its size will depend on the size of the actual Iranian losses. If they are large, as the Israeli media claims, then the Iranian response is likely to be strong. However, if the damage is minor, as the Iranian media explains, then the response will be limited, indicating the desire of both parties to avoid the outbreak of a comprehensive war in the region.

Israel seeks to demonstrate its continued deterrence capabilities

Writer and expert on Israeli affairs Yasser Manna explains the latest Israeli strategy: Israel seeks to demonstrate its continued ability to deter by targeting any sites it deems necessary, backed by a supportive American position that demonstrates the strength of the alliance between the two parties.

Manaa points out that the declared Israeli targets are not the only ones in the picture, as there remains a hidden aspect that is difficult to predict due to the lack of complete information about the losses or details of the targeted operations so far.

Manna points out that both Israel and Iran are currently working to reformulate the rules of engagement in the Middle East, in a long and ongoing path of confrontation that did not begin with the events of October 7 and will not end with the recent strikes.

According to Manaa, Israel considers that its operations are not limited to a direct confrontation with Iran, but rather include targeting resistance factions in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen and Syria, as part of a broader strategy to confront Iranian influence, as Israel adopts a gradual approach that is not separate from this path.

US calculations towards Iran remain complex

Manaa stresses that American calculations towards Iran remain complex and subject to international influences from Russia and China, which increases the difficulty of making tough decisions.

He points out that the United States may have adopted this approach to avoid entering into a direct confrontation with Iran, while its joint strategy with Israel focuses on achieving long-term goals, including changing the ruling regime in Gaza as part of the objectives of the ongoing war.

According to Manaa, the distribution of geographical targets in the Israeli strikes reinforces the idea that Israel is keen to avoid escalation to the level of a broad regional war, a strategy in which Iran participates, especially since the Israeli targeting did not include Iranian oil or nuclear facilities.

The Iranian response may be limited or postponed in the near future.

Hence, Manaa expects the Iranian response to be limited or postponed in the near future, as Iran believes that waiting allows it to strengthen its position as a rising power, as it enables it to continue expanding its influence indirectly.

Manaa believes that this current situation enables Iran to strengthen its position in the region through its ability to confront American-Israeli pressure without being drawn into open escalation. With the continuation of this approach, Iran finds itself in a position of strength, which increases its influence in the balance of power in the Middle East and supports its efforts to consolidate its regional presence more broadly.

Internal Israeli message

Writer and political analyst Daoud Kuttab believes that the message that Israel is trying to send by targeting Iran has an internal character more than being an external deterrent strategy.

Writers consider the Israeli strike to be "timid" and without any real impact, revealing a clear gap between harsh Israeli statements and actual actions on the ground.

According to writers, Israel sought through this limited attack to confirm its presence and nothing more, in a message similar to “the mountain labored and brought forth a mouse,” as it seems that Israel wanted to prove its existence without taking effective steps capable of influencing the regional balance of power.

He believes that this strike does not amount to deterrence or strategic change, as it did not carry with it a significant impact on the level of regional security or convince of the strength of the Israeli response. Israel’s statement that it has stopped attacks against Iran may be a calming signal, whether to the Iranian side or to the region as a whole, as it aims to reassure the concerned parties, including Iran, that Israel does not intend to escalate matters in the near future.

As for Iran’s possible response, writers believe that the options remain limited to a limited response or complete abstention, but writers prefer the latter option, stressing that Iran may choose to abstain from responding at the present time, which may actually lead to turning the page on this file, at least in the current and medium term.

Multiple messages that cannot be separated from US support

Israeli affairs expert Muhammad Abu Allan Daraghmeh believes that the recent Israeli strike against Iranian targets carries several messages, but these messages cannot be separated from the approval and support of the United States, which he believes was present in every Israeli step.

Draghmeh points out that the first message that Israel tried to send was that it would not accept any “threat to its territory” or attempt to “breach its sovereignty,” which from its point of view constitutes the basis for any future Israeli response.

The second message, according to Draghmeh, is to demonstrate Israel's ability to reach Iranian strategic facilities, including oil and nuclear facilities, which enhances the image of Israeli deterrence.

But despite these messages, Draghmeh believes that the effectiveness of the strikes remains limited unless they are accompanied by strong American support. This is evident in recent American steps, as the United States put pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make the attack limited, which shows the extent of Washington’s ability to influence the course of events in the region when it wants to.

Draghmeh explains that the coordination between the United States and Israel in this context was clear through continuous contacts between the Israeli Minister of Defense and the US Secretary of Defense, in addition to direct talks between the US President and Netanyahu, and US Secretary of State Blinken was present in the region to enhance this coordination.

Militarily, Draghmeh points out that Israel cannot fundamentally change the regional balance of power without American support. Israel has been waiting for the arrival of the American THAAD defense system to confront any potential Iranian response, and American refueling planes and F-16s have been transferred from Germany to the region.

Thus, Draghmeh describes Israel's military capability as limited in confronting Iran without American support.

Regarding the potential Iranian response, Draghmeh believes that Tehran’s options are focused on using ballistic missiles, after Iranian drones proved their limited effectiveness against Israeli air defenses, regional support, and American bases in the region, as these Iranian drones cover very long distances, and are not like Hezbollah’s drones from close distances.

However, Draghmeh points out that Iran may be moving towards containing the latest Israeli attack, given its weak impact, as the Iranians themselves describe it.

Iran may respond through its allies

Draghmeh expects Iran to respond indirectly through its allies, such as the Houthis or Hezbollah, but it is unlikely that the response will be direct.

As for regional escalation, Draghmeh believes that a state of “indirect regional war” is already underway, as Israel clashes with drones launched from Yemen and Iraq, in addition to the ongoing escalation on the northern border, the war of extermination in the Gaza Strip, and tensions in the West Bank.

Draghmeh points out that these situations may not reach the point of direct war between countries, but the pace of clashes suggests that there is an ongoing escalation between Israel and various factions in the region, making regional escalation an ongoing reality that reflects the complexities of the current geopolitical situation.

carefully thought out response

Writer and political analyst Muhammad Hawash believes that the Israeli strike against Iran comes within the framework of mutual deterrence operations between the two parties, pointing out that this strike came after Israel was exposed to multiple Iranian strikes, as Israel believes it is necessary to respond in a step that could ignite a larger conflict in the region.

But the Israeli response, according to Hawash, was carefully considered and calculated, taking into account American interests in the region, with the aim of confirming Israel's ability to deter Iran without a dangerous escalation that could negatively affect the stability of the region.

Hawash explains that the Israeli attack targeted several Iranian military bases, and Israel considers this step to be sufficient at this stage without going beyond the scope of American reservations.

Hawash points out that this disciplined approach comes in accordance with US calculations, especially before the US presidential elections, as Washington prefers to maintain relative stability in the region and avoid a direct confrontation that might put it in an embarrassing position, especially if it is forced to support Israel in a way that it does not want or is trying to avoid but cannot do so. In this context, the US administration avoids any broad Iranian reactions that might lead to a comprehensive military escalation, and is trying to control events in a way that serves its interests in the short term.

Hawash believes that the balance of power between Iran and Israel is not affected by a single strike, explaining that Iran possesses sufficient deterrence capabilities, while Israel maintains its qualitative military superiority.

Maintaining the rules of engagement

Hawash stresses that the current situation shows the keenness of both parties to maintain the rules of engagement without being drawn into greater escalation, especially with the continued statements confirming that neither side wants to escalate matters or break the current state of balance.

Regarding the Iranian response, Hawash expects that Iran's response will be indirect, as in such cases Iran tends to support its allies in the region without resorting to a direct military confrontation with Israel.

Hawash points out that the nature of the escalation in the region remains largely linked to the results of the upcoming US presidential elections, as whoever wins these elections, whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, may determine the future direction towards greater escalation or imposing a settlement in the region.

Strengthening the confidence of the Israeli public opinion

Writer and political analyst Imad Musa believes that the recent Israeli strike on Iran carries multiple messages, primarily aimed at strengthening the confidence of the Israeli public in the ability of the occupation army to reach any target, in order to establish Israel's image as a regional superpower that transcends international norms and laws.

Musa points out that the second message is directed to Iran, the countries of the region, and the axis of resistance, with the aim of casting doubt on Iran’s credibility as an ally and raising doubts about it.

According to Musa, the Israeli media is promoting allegations that the United States informed Iran of the date of the strike in advance, and that Israel sent a message through a third party, which reinforces Israel’s narrative and serves its goal of undermining regional alliances surrounding Iran, with the aim of weakening it in the long term and isolating it politically.

Netanyahu plays on political strings

Musa believes that the Israeli strike on Iran was superficial, as it was not aimed at achieving military gains as much as it came in response to an American demand, in light of the sensitivity of the economic situation of the United States and its Western allies, who want to avoid any escalation that would affect the stability of the region before the American elections.

Mousa points out that Netanyahu, for his part, seems to be playing on political strings to achieve interests that are in line with the aspirations of both candidates in the upcoming US presidential elections, while Washington is also seeking to prepare the ground for a possible confrontation with China. For this reason, it prefers to neutralize Iran if possible, with the aim of avoiding a long war of attrition with the axis of resistance, which finds strong support from Russia and China within the framework of the emerging BRICS bloc.

Iran may resort to a "show" response

As for the Iranian response to Israel, Moussa believes that Iran may resort to a “show” response as it did previously, or push Hezbollah to use smart missiles to harm Israel without a comprehensive escalation, in a move that sends a message of strength from the axis of resistance, while avoiding a comprehensive confrontation.

Musa believes that things will remain within the limits of the known rules of engagement, without entering into a comprehensive war in the region, as Israel needs time to intensify its strikes against the Lebanese villages that support Hezbollah, exploiting the current period to weaken the infrastructure of its popular incubator, which achieves its long-term goal of eroding popular support for the resistance in Lebanon, in addition to continuing to achieve its goals in the Gaza Strip, as it believes.

Reasons for adjusting the rhythm of the strike

Writer and political analyst Samer Anabtawi points out that the Israeli response to the Iranian strike came after about 25 days of anticipation, while Netanyahu and Galant, in addition to the army leadership, promoted a "earth-shattering" strike that would leave Iran in deep shock.

Anbatawi explains that the actual Israeli response to Iran was limited for several reasons, most notably the American pressure that sought to avoid a broad escalation before the upcoming American presidential elections. The United States pushed for a moderate response from Israel that would not require a violent response from Iran, in order to avoid entering into a major confrontation that could affect the stability of the region before the elections on November 5.

Anbatawi believes that the other reason is the strong Iranian threats that reached Israel through mediators, which forced the Israeli government to have a new assessment of the possible consequences, as it found that the Israeli interior might not be able to bear another Iranian response.

Anbatawi points out that this analysis shows that the limited strike left Israel with a new message from the axis of resistance. The indecisive response made Israel carefully calculate any further escalatory steps, and restored the balance between Israel and the axis of resistance, which will have a major impact on the course of regional negotiations.

US seeks to bargain with Iran not to respond

As for Iran's options for response, Anbatawi believes that Iran has acquired the international legal right to respond, and is hinting at this right in the context of a diplomatic threat.

According to Anbatawi, it is likely that the United States is now seeking to bargain with Iran not to respond, while offering a calm in the region that includes the ongoing war in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, ahead of the elections.

This approach, according to Anabtawi, gives Iran the power to impose some demands in favor of its allies, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and may push toward increasing American pressure to achieve a diplomatic agreement, even if it is temporary, even if it is an unviable agreement, with the aim of strengthening the Democratic Party’s position in the elections away from widespread regional unrest.

However, Anabtawi believes that the risk of regional escalation is still possible, as Netanyahu, under the pressure of the internal crisis, his personal political problems, and maintaining his government coalition, is trying to push the situation towards a wide regional war as an option to strengthen his faltering government’s position.

In this context, Anbatawi points out that there is a broad trend within the American deep state, especially with the possibility of Donald Trump coming to power again, that sees the importance of achieving a “comprehensive regional war,” but the current internal and international pressures are besieging Netanyahu, but the possibility remains towards escalation in the future, and no one knows how things will turn out.