CNN —
After Israel’s attack on Iran on Saturday, U.S. officials were quick to warn both countries against perpetuating the cycle of violence, but analysts say a sustained detente is not a foregone conclusion. .
A senior U.S. official said after the airstrike that “the direct firefight between Israel and Iran should end.”
Israel said in a statement that it launched what it called “precision strikes against Iranian military targets” early Saturday morning after reports of explosions heard in Tehran. The airstrike was carried out in retaliation for Iran’s barrage of missiles toward Israel on October 1, in retaliation for the killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and others.
Iran said Israel “attacked some military centers” in Tehran, Khuzestan and Iram provinces on Saturday, causing “limited damage” in some areas.
Iranian experts say Iran appears to have downplayed the Israeli attack. State media broadcast footage showing calm streets in Tehran, with traffic passing and people going about their daily business.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry condemned the attack as a “clear violation of international law.” The ministry added that Iran “believes it has the right and obligation to defend itself" following the Israeli attack.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Politics in Washington, D.C., said Iran’s downplayed response, like Israel’s efforts, is “less important than a true assessment of the damage Israel has inflicted on Iran. “It may reflect their desire to de-escalate tensions,” he said. To hide the damage caused by the October 1 attack on Iran.
Benam Ben Taleburu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, also based in Washington, D.C., said Iran’s downplayed response was a “strategic move to save face and maintain U.S. constraints on Israel.” He said there is a possibility.
After a several-hour attack on Saturday, the Israeli military said it had targeted a manufacturing site used to produce missiles that Iran has launched into Israel over the past year. Israel also announced early Saturday that it had struck Iranian air defense systems to allow its aircraft to attack other targets.
Israeli officials said Israel’s decision to carry out the attack early Saturday morning followed weeks of consultations within the security cabinet about the nature and scope of such an attack.
U.S. officials are keen to show how well-rehearsed and precise the Israeli strikes were, especially as the U.S. will not force Israel to attack Iranian energy infrastructure for fear of provoking a broader conflict. According to preliminary information, Israel appears to have heeded the request.
After Israel’s retaliatory strikes against Iran ended, National Security Council Spokesman Sean Savet said the White House would “force Iran to take action against Israel in order to end this cycle without further escalation of hostilities.” He urged them to stop the attacks.
However, Israel has not always met the demands of its American ally. Throughout the war, Israel has defied U.S. calls for restraint, including in Operation Rafah in southern Gaza and more recently in ground combat in southern Lebanon.
Differences between the two governments culminated in an October 13 letter from the United States to Israel, urging the Jewish state to take action to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza within the next 30 days. The request risked violating U.S. law governing foreign military aid, and suggested that U.S. military aid could be provided unfairly. At risk.
Danny Sitrinowitz, a fellow in the Iran Program at the Tel Aviv Institute for National Security Studies and a former Israeli defense intelligence officer specializing in Iran, says it’s hard to predict how the coming hours and days will unfold. He said it was too early. “But one thing is clear,” he said. “Last night, Israel and Iran moved closer to the brink of direct war than ever before.”
“The ball is now in the court of the Iranian leadership,” Citrinovich said in X, adding that the Iranian regime likely faces a familiar dilemma: fight back to gain reputation; He added that Israel’s attack could be viewed as a direct end to the conflict.
“If Iran chooses restraint…this chapter may close, but the conflict will still exist,” Parsi of the Quincy Institute said.
When Iran opted for restraint in the wake of Israeli retaliation in April, it emboldened the Jewish state to remove key Hezbollah leaders in Beirut, triggering the next cycle of aggression.
Experts say the hiatus in direct fighting between Iran and Israel is unlikely to last long, while Israel continues its wars in Gaza and Lebanon.
As long as these regional wars continue, the overall trajectory of the Israeli-Iranian conflict will intensify. “While there may be a tactical de-escalation, the trajectory remains escalating,” Parsi said, adding that “it will only be a matter of time before we see another exchange of fire between Israel and Iran.” He added that the next round is “likely to be more intense”. ”
Israel has long sought to bring Iran and other Iranian proxies back under deterrence. But experts say Israel’s strategy may not be completely effective.
HA Hellyer, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Royal Institute for Defense and Security Studies in London, said: “Iran will be unable to prevent future escalation if it sees fit, and neither will Israel.” He told CNN’s Paula. Newton added that deterrence is often used as an excuse by aggressor countries, but it only destabilizes the region.
“Escalation doesn’t de-escalate. This is the most incredible thing I’ve ever heard,” he said.
