“The Iranians have only bad choices at their disposal.” This is the summarized analysis of David Khalfa, analyst for the Jean Jaurès Foundation in Paris, interviewed by AFP. The Middle East is sitting on a pile of embers that risks igniting after the recent strike attributed to Israel on the Iranian consulate in Damascus. Iran would just have to blow the spark to make everything explode. However, it is not so simple for the Islamic Republic which, despite its repeated threats of retaliation, has always avoided direct confrontation with its regional enemy.
The risk of regional escalation
Israel’s allied countries, starting with the Americans, are on maximum alert. There is real concern regarding Iran’s military capabilities to strike Israel. But the operation would represent a major escalation. And Tehran has maintained since that date a questioning ambiguity.
“Iran is still threatening to respond, while sending regional and international messages that it is seeking a political alternative to a military response,” Eva Koulouriotis, an independent Middle East expert, told AFP. “Tehran does not want a frontal war with Israel, at least at this stage” and cannot afford an escalation, she adds, estimating that “this impasse explains the delay in response”.
The risk of losing face
Iran finds itself “facing a dilemma”, writes former Frenchman Michel Duclos, on the Institut Montaigne website. “He is probably not sure enough of his strengths to consider an escalation with Israel with a light heart. If, however, he does not respond, he risks losing part of his credibility in the region, both in public opinion and among the armed groups who pledge allegiance to him.”
The “Axis of Resistance” Option
These armed groups, in Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon, which form the Iranian “axis of resistance” against Israel, therefore appear more than ever on the front line, with a possible intensification of their operations, according to Farzan Sabet , expert from the Geneva Graduate Institute.
Iran could ask them to increase the number of attacks, and increase deliveries of modern weapons, he predicts on risk of flashback.
Among the other hypotheses is the strike of an Israeli diplomatic representation abroad, which would have the disadvantage of involving a third country. Or a “terrorist attack against American diplomatic installations in or outside the region”, also mentions the Soufan Center.
Cascading consequences
The debates are described as intense within the Iranian regime. On April 1, “Israel wanted to change the rules of the game by hitting the head of the octopus, and not just its tentacles, to force Iran out of the shadow war and the proxy war of attrition », says David Khalfa.
“Calculation errors are entirely possible. Deterrence has an eminently psychological aspect,” he notes: “The belligerents are at the mercy of an error and a slip-up which can then cause cascading consequences.”