Dr. Jamal Al-Shalabi: Iran will not respond to the Israeli strike and will maintain a long-term strategy of attrition, and things are heading towards a real calm

Hani Al-Jamal: The timing of the Israeli strike on Iran reflects precise American calculations in light of the approaching elections and to avoid any widespread repercussions

Aziz Al-Assa: The scene in the Middle East does not tolerate any expansion of the military conflict, and Iran’s statements carry a prior justification for not responding directly

Nevin Abu Rahmon: The level of the Israeli strike was limited and the situation remains within the equation of controlled escalation and not expanding the scope of the war regionally

Johnny Mansour: US restraints deterred Israel from expanding its strike, and there are indications of indirect negotiation channels between Tehran and Washington

Dr. Riad Al-Aila: The mutual strikes between Iran and Israel and the reactions that accompany them are coordinated in advance with the US administration to avoid escalation

Dr. Muhammad Khalifa Siddiq: Iran’s response may be limited and it may resort to intensifying its media responses to save face as well as its nuclear project

Mehmet Celik: Iran may respond to the strike in a controlled manner, and the US is working to keep the conflict under control until the elections are over

After a torrent of Israeli threats to strike Iran with a painful blow and target its nuclear sites and oil facilities, Israel launched its strike at dawn on Saturday, October 26, targeting military sites and targets west of Tehran and in the provinces of Ilam and Khuzestan. However, according to many observers and analysts, it did not rise to the level of the extremely harsh Israeli statements, while the Iranian authorities downplayed the extent of the strike and its damage.

Writers and analysts who spoke to “Y” believe that this limited strike and the reactions to it indicate that there were interventions that took place in the last hours to control the pace of the strike and prevent the expansion of the escalation so that the region is not dragged into a wide regional war, especially since the United States is working to avoid expanding the military escalation as its presidential elections approach.

They point out that the Iranian statements that downplayed the Israeli strike may be a prior justification for Tehran not responding directly, and that instead it may resort to media responses to save face, as well as to protect its nuclear project, especially since the United States is following a policy of enticement and intimidation in the region, and that it will defend its ally Israel in the event of any potential attack. They believe that in light of these facts, the chances of a regional war have become less, while a number of them pointed out that there are indications of the existence of indirect negotiation channels between Iran and the United States, and that things are heading towards calm.

Escalation between Iran and Israel will not expand at the present time

Dr. Jamal Al-Shalabi, Professor of Political Science at Hashemite University of Jordan, said that the escalation between Iran and Israel will not expand at the present time, expecting that the game is over and that things are heading towards a real calm.

Regarding whether Iran will respond to the latest Israeli strike, Al-Shalabi believes that “no one wants to expand the scope of the war at this moment, especially with the approach of the presidential elections in the United States,” which will witness decisive changes in American policy.

He pointed out that the US administration, regardless of who wins the upcoming elections, whether it is Kamala Harris from the Democratic Party or former President Donald Trump from the Republican Party, will not be interested in launching a new war in the Middle East.

He added that the major economic challenges and the three-year war between Russia and Ukraine reinforce the need for a policy of restraint and avoiding costly conflicts.

He believes that Iran was able to send a strong message to Israel through its military capabilities that it demonstrated in previous operations, which made it, in Israel's view, a "confrontation state."

American "maestro" sets the pace of conflicts

Al-Shalabi also pointed out that the American role is currently playing the role of a "maestro" to control the rhythm of the conflicts, especially in light of Iran's desire for the Democrats to remain in the White House, given the possibility of easing economic sanctions and opening a positive dialogue regarding the nuclear file.

Regarding his expectations about the nature of the Iranian response, the political science professor explained that Iran will avoid direct escalation, and instead will seek to strengthen its support for its regional allies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and the Houthi group in Yemen.

He said that this strategy will focus on draining the Israeli economy in the long term, noting that Israel cannot bear economic, security and diplomatic pressures for a period exceeding a year, which will enable Iran to achieve its goals in the end without the need for direct intervention.

Al-Shalabi completely ruled out any direct reaction from Iran against Israel during this period, explaining that the Iranian strategy will remain within the framework of calm and gradual attrition of the opponent, to achieve long-term gains.

Sending a strong message of pressure to Iran

In turn, Egyptian political analyst Hani Al-Gamal spoke to “I” about the details and dimensions of the recent Israeli air strike that targeted Iranian military facilities used in the production of solid missile fuel, explaining that the strike was organized and targeted vital sites, which disrupted Iran’s capabilities in manufacturing missiles and affected its military production; it also hit important defense facilities, including the advanced air defense system “S300.”

Al-Jamal pointed out that the strike was carried out in clear coordination between Israel and America, as Washington agreed to implement it in a specific manner to avoid any widespread repercussions that might threaten the stability of the region.

He explained that the main goal was to send a strong message of pressure to Iran, without reaching the point of a major military escalation that could destabilize the security of the Middle East.

Regarding the regional atmosphere, Al-Jamal pointed out that Israel used Iraqi airspace to carry out its strikes on Iranian facilities, which confirms the existence of regional security coordination at the highest levels.

Al-Jamal considered that choosing this timing for the strike reflects the United States' careful calculations in light of the approaching presidential elections, as the Biden administration prefers to strongly support Israel, but without causing an uncalculated escalation that could harm its interests in the region, especially in light of the sensitivity of the global energy market.

Al-Jamal also indicated that Iran sought to reduce the impact of the strike through official statements, in an attempt to present a calm and stable image internally.

He stressed that the Dutch mediation played an indirect role in leaking some information to Iran about the targeted locations, which greatly reduced the impact of the strike.

However, Al-Jamal pointed out that Iran has the capabilities to respond through Iraq, but it chose a calm approach to avoid any escalation that might require a broader American military intervention.

He explained that Tehran may go to the Security Council and the United Nations to file a complaint about the strike, as part of its efforts to enhance its political and diplomatic gains, while preserving its strategic security and nuclear program away from the risk of direct escalation with Israel.

In this context, Al-Jamal confirms that the Israeli strike is considered a step within a well-thought-out Israeli-American strategy, which aims to tighten the noose on Iran and weaken its military capabilities, without reaching the point of no return, which places the region in a period of relative calm while the latent tension continues.

America follows the strategy of carrot and stick

Commenting on the recent Israeli strike that targeted Iranian military sites in several governorates on the night of October 25-26, 2024, Jerusalemite writer and researcher Aziz Al-Assa pointed out that Iran’s statements describing the strike as “weak and of limited effect” may contain a prior justification for not responding directly to Israel.

Al-Assa said: What confirms this is that the map of targets that Israel intended to strike had been leaked to Iran, in one way or another, and that Israel, after striking Iran, warned that the Iranian response would be met with a more painful and effective Israeli response.

Al-Assa explained that “the general scene in the Middle East, in light of the hourglass accelerating towards the US presidential elections, can no longer tolerate any future expansion of the military conflict, especially since America is following a strategy of enticement and intimidation and had previously announced that it was ready to intervene in defense of Israel on the one hand, and now it is stirring up the stagnant waters of the negotiations for a truce and/or a ceasefire on the Palestinian and Lebanese fronts.”

Al-Assa also pointed out that Israel announced its intention to stop its ground attacks in Lebanon within the next two weeks, coinciding with the doubling of the number of its dead officers and soldiers on the Lebanese and Palestinian fronts, which could be understood as an imminent ceasefire on the Lebanese front, separate from the Gaza front, which Israel has “drowned” in trying to fragment and cut off its north for the benefit of different goals, which prolongs the war on this front and exposes Israel to more losses in the ranks of its army.

On the other hand, Al-Assa pointed out that this Israeli announcement and the negotiations taking place in Doha, with the participation of the Mossad, contradict Netanyahu and his government’s strategy based on achieving Israeli deterrence and subjecting the region – on all fronts – to Israeli dictates, which makes us read a state of Israeli weakness and retreat, if not just a tactical media trick to confuse the calculations of Israel’s enemies in the region.

Israel's inability to expand the escalation

Nevin Abu Rahmon, an expert on Israeli affairs, said that in the Israeli aggression on Iran, Netanyahu wanted to look for the image, but he did not actually succeed in exporting an image of the nature and form of this aggression, and thus this element was not achieved, because the level of aggression was limited and did not reflect the Israeli statements and threats on the eve of it.

She considered that Netanyahu was keen to mobilize the Israeli public and raise the ceiling of expectations, and what actually happened seems weak.

Abu Rahmoun pointed out that in terms of the actual impact on the confrontation scene in terms of the nature and type of targeting, nuclear and economic sites were neutralized, and also military sites that have an offensive nature in launching missiles were not targeted, and defensive sites may have actually been targeted, according to what is being circulated, considering that "this is a great indication of Israel's inability to expand the escalation."

Iranian political movement contributed to controlling the strike and its form

In contrast, Abu Rahmon saw that “the political and diplomatic movement that Iran has recently played in the region in its efforts to control the aggression against it has contributed greatly to controlling it and its form, so that the situation remains in the equation of controlled escalation and not expanding the scope of the war regionally.”

She stressed that this also applies to America's desire for this in terms of the level of confrontation, noting that the American administration is still adhering to the limited path of confrontation due to the local elections and due to what is happening on the ground at the regional level.

Abu Rahmon expressed her belief that now, with all this information, the chances of a regional war have become less, but the opportunity remains to deal with the expected Iranian response and do its damage, which will determine the course of the confrontation again.

Tensions between desired goals and field reality

In turn, historian and Middle East researcher Johnny Mansour explained that tensions between Iran and Israel range between desired goals and field reality, pointing out that Israeli ambitions, especially those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have been directed since 1996 towards destroying Iranian nuclear facilities, as well as oil facilities and military and civilian facilities. However, American restraints have deterred Netanyahu from achieving these goals for fear that this would cause a regional expansion of the conflict, which could open the way for greater Russian and Chinese influence in the region.

Mansour added: There are indications of the existence of indirect negotiation channels between Iran and the United States, which aim primarily to separate Iran from the regional resistance axis, which includes Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and other allies, in an effort by Washington to achieve more Western hegemony in the region, as Israel is considered an agent for these forces.

Mansour addressed what was recently circulated in the media about the impact of the Israeli strike on Iran, which was described as "light." He pointed out that this information is not proven, noting that Israeli F-35 aircraft have already launched strikes described as "painful" against Iranian sites and facilities.

Mansour believed that Iran tried to mitigate the impact of the strike in the media to save face domestically and regionally.

In the context of the possibility of an Iranian response, Mansour ruled out that Tehran would make an immediate response unless the response was agreed upon and pre-programmed with the US administration, as happened recently.

Washington seeks to avoid escalation

For his part, Dr. Riyad Al-Aila, Professor of Political Science at Al-Azhar University in Gaza, confirmed that the mutual strikes between Iran and Israel, and the reactions that accompany them, are taking place within prior coordination with the American administration.

He pointed out that Iran, despite the Israeli strikes, will not respond to them, considering that they did not affect its sensitive sites, while contributing to strengthening the image and arrogance of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Al-Aila stated that these strikes, including Iranian drone attacks, are being carried out in accordance with arrangements with Washington to ensure that the conflict does not expand, indicating that any Iranian response will be conditional on the extent of Israel’s commitment to coordination with the United States.

Al-Aila warned of the possibility of the conflict getting out of control if Israel continues its strikes without American coordination, which is what Washington seeks to avoid, in order to ensure stability in the region.

Iranian fears of expanding the war

Dr. Mohamed Khalifa Siddiq, Professor of Political Science at the International University of Africa in Khartoum, pointed out that the Iranian response to the recent Israeli strike may be limited, and that Tehran may resort to intensifying its media responses instead of a direct military response, in order to save face.

Khalifa explained that Iranian concerns are focused on avoiding the expansion of the regional war and preserving its nuclear project, citing Iraq's experience with the Osirak nuclear reactor, which was destroyed by Israel in the 1980s.

He explained that Tehran's room for maneuver has become narrow, especially after the success of the recent air strikes that targeted Iranian sites, despite Iran's attempts to reduce their impact.

Khalifa added: An examination of previous Iranian reactions indicates that Tehran may not take an escalatory or unexpected military stance, but will seek to maintain the current balances, while avoiding engaging in a broad confrontation that may threaten its strategic gains in the region.

No major reaction is expected.

Mehmet Celik, editor-in-chief of the Turkish newspaper Daily Sabah, said that Iran may respond in a controlled manner to the recent Israeli strike, and that any major reaction is not expected, noting that the United States is working to keep the conflict under control until the end of the American elections.

Celik explained that the Israeli strike did not target sensitive facilities, such as oil or nuclear sites, suggesting that the goal was a show of force rather than inflicting significant damage.

He stressed that Israel wanted to send a message showing its ability to reach these facilities if it decided to escalate the attack.

Celik added that the current situation reflects a policy of "showing strength" from both sides, as each side seeks to demonstrate its ability to harm the other if things escalate into a full-scale war.