Israel attacked Iran last week in a retaliatory strike following weeks of escalating tensions between the two nations. Since then, Iran's response to the "limited" strike has been "muted and mild," said Frank Gardner, a security correspondent at the BBC, with some officials "denying outright that it even took place at all."
What did the commentators say? Israel's attack was a sign that it intends to continue a "game of high-stakes poker with Iran," Tom Fletcher, the U.K.'s former ambassador to Lebanon, said to BBC Radio 4's "Today" program. "Iran is starting to signal that it is not necessarily a major escalation," he said. "They are playing it down. And of course, Israel could have chosen to do something more dramatic."
Such a limited strike on Iran may actually be an effort from Tel Aviv to "climb down from a major kinetic conflict," Dr. Andreas Krieg, an expert on Middle Eastern security from King's College London, told MailOnline. "If this is the extent of Israel's retaliation, it could be described as a de-escalatory strike."
Domestically, there is little appetite for conflict among the people of Iran, said Arash Azizi in The Atlantic. Most are "sick of the Islamic Republic and its octogenarian leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose decades-long rule has "brought Iran economic ruin, international isolation, and now the threat of a war."
What next? Iranian officials told Reuters that Tehran had no plans for an immediate retaliation against Israel, despite contradicting statements made by several senior politicians earlier this week. Other experts have said there is still potential for a wider conflict. Iran has "demonstrated a shift in the country's stance to one more open to direct military engagement," said Gabrielle Reid, an associate director at security firm S-RM.
Israel's response was a clear message that it can "dial it up" and strike deep into Iranian territory, Fletcher said to the BBC. "The danger in all of this, of course, is that there is risk of miscalculation." |