TABNAK, Oct, 06: These figures were instrumental to Iran’s regional influence, and their loss was seen as a blow to Tehran’s credibility. The missile strike was portrayed not just as an act of revenge but as a reaffirmation of Iran’s commitment to defending its regional allies and projecting its power.
Some analysts interpret this attack as part of a broader strategy of “escalation to de-escalate,” forcing adversaries into diplomatic negotiations by heightening the threat of violence. However, there is a compelling argument to focus on the symbolic aspects.
The scale, speed, and advanced capabilities demonstrated in the attack suggest that Iran sought to signal both its military strength and its readiness to respond forcefully to perceived threats to its leadership and strategic interests. Moreover, the timing—during the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah—adds an ideological layer to the operation, as noted by Iranian media (Ofogh TV Channel).
A Continuation of Strategic Development
This attack, and the broader escalation, are not simply a result of recent developments, but rather reflect a deeper continuity in Iran’s regional policy. For years, Iran has been observing geopolitical shifts in the Middle East, most notably the Abraham Accords, which saw Israel form closer ties with Arab states, including Saudi Arabia.
The accords heightened Iran’s sense of isolation and threat, spurring significant advancements in its missile and defense capabilities, including the development of hypersonic missiles. The recent strikes are, in fact, a continuation of these long-term security concerns and strategic developments, demonstrating that Iran’s military actions are deeply rooted in a larger regional context.
Iran framed the attack as part of its broader “self-defense” strategy, citing ongoing Israeli operations in Gaza and Lebanon. This escalation has further strained the already tense relations in the region, where Israel is simultaneously engaged with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that Iran would “pay a heavy price” for its actions, and both Israel and the U.S. have vowed consequences for Tehran.
Israel’s air defense system intercepted a majority of the incoming ballistic missiles, minimizing damage. However, some missiles did strike central and southern Israel, causing structural damage.
The IRGC’s second statement indicated, however, that 90% of the missiles hit their targets, emphasizing the vulnerability of Israel’s Iron Dome.
In comparing Iran’s recent missile attack on Israel with the one in April 2024, there are several key differences that stand out. First, the October 1 strike was notably faster and more sudden. Unlike the April incident, where there were some signs and warnings ahead of the attack, this time, Iran did not issue any significant forewarning, also rejecting the point that Iran sent any message to the US before the attack.
This rapid response was likely intended by Iran to showcase advancements in its missile technology, signaling an enhanced capability to strike faster and with greater precision, demonstrating its growing military sophistication and ability to adapt its tactics.
Public and Political Response: Achieving Internal Objectives
It’s important to highlight that the public response, especially on social media and in Iranian newspapers, suggests that the missile attack achieved some of its intended objectives. Domestically, it rallied support, particularly among those who view the attack as a necessary act of retaliation for the assassinations of Nasrallah, Haniyeh, and the IRGC official. The Iranian government likely wanted to convey both internally and externally that it is capable of defending its regional interests and responding swiftly to any perceived threats against its leadership.
The Iranian media has portrayed the attack as a significant show of strength, reinforcing the image of a resilient nation capable of taking bold actions when necessary. The social media discourse reflects a sense of national pride in the military’s capabilities, particularly with the advanced and swift execution of the strike, which was framed as a justified response to recent losses.
This narrative likely contributed to shaping public opinion in favor of the government’s actions, amplifying the symbolic importance of the attack beyond just its military impact.
Layers of Uncertainty in a Volatile Geopolitical Backdrop
In decision-making theory, risk implies that potential outcomes can be predicted with some level of probability based on available data. However, uncertainty means that the outcomes are not just unknown but fundamentally unpredictable and unquantifiable. When we apply this to the current situation, it becomes clear that Iran’s actions—and the regional and international reactions to those actions—are taking place in a space of deep uncertainty. Analysts and decision-makers are grappling with unpredictability regarding the consequences of such military strikes, the possibility of further escalations, and the broader geopolitical shifts that might follow.
This uncertainty seems to be acknowledged within Iran’s own strategic planning. The speed and nature of the missile strike, for instance, suggest that Iran is trying to demonstrate its military strength and adaptability in a highly volatile and unpredictable environment. Yet, the broader outcomes—whether it will lead to further retaliation from Israel, U.S. involvement, or changes in alliances within the region—are entirely uncertain.
In this phase of uncertainty, outside analyses that attempt to predict the “risks” of Iran’s actions may indeed be misleading. Unlike a calculated risk, where analysts could predict possible scenarios and assign probabilities, the situation now defies such straightforward analysis.
The unpredictable nature of the outcomes creates a scenario where decisions are made under conditions of significant complexity, and the possible ramifications are not easily measurable. This reflects not just the unpredictability of Iran’s military actions but also the broader instability of the region as a whole.
Thus, to better grasp the evolving situation, we need to shift focus away from traditional risk analysis and toward a deeper understanding of the uncertainties at play. These uncertainties influence the decision-making processes not only in Tehran but across the region, as regional actors must navigate a landscape where the rules of engagement are constantly shifting, and the outcomes are anything but certain.
In light of the growing instability and Iran’s sense of vulnerability, some analysts within the country argue that nuclear advancement could provide the ultimate security guarantee, particularly as tensions with Israel escalate. However, this possibility remains speculative, and like much of the situation surrounding Iran’s military strategy, it is shrouded in uncertainty. The broader geopolitical context, including Iran’s standing in international negotiations on nuclear proliferation, further complicates these discussions.
Within the framework of uncertainty that dominates the region, the possibility of nuclear advancement remains on the horizon. Although there is no clear indication that Iran has made definitive moves in this direction, the ongoing debate signals that nuclear policy is still very much a part of Iran’s strategic calculations.
This development would have profound implications for regional security, further escalating tensions and adding to the unpredictability of the situation.
Critical Concluding Remarks
While many Iranians, under the influence of a strong nationalist discourse, see the missile strike against Israel as a defense of Iran’s territorial integrity, the reality goes beyond national borders. Iran’s actions, particularly its support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, and its engagement in conflicts beyond its borders, reflect an ideological commitment that transcends traditional state boundaries.
The attacks are not just about protecting Iran’s physical borders but about defending an “imaginary” ideological territory that includes Iran’s support for the Palestinian cause and the broader “Axis of Resistance” in the region.
This shift is particularly striking when we consider how domestic security threats, such as the ongoing attacks on Iran’s eastern borders with Pakistan and in Balochistan, are comparatively downplayed.
While these attacks affect Iran’s physical borders, they do not provoke the same level of national outrage or military response as incidents involving allies outside of Iran, like the assassinations of Hezbollah or Hamas leaders. This indicates a strategic reorientation, where protecting ideological alliances and regional influence has become more significant than securing the actual borders of the Iranian state.
In conclusion, this shift within Iran’s strategic thinking can be understood within the broader context of uncertainty that characterizes the current regional dynamics. Iran’s engagement in these conflicts is not merely about defense but about projecting influence and defending ideological borders that extend far beyond its geographical boundaries.
This evolving approach, shaped by the unpredictability of the situation, highlights a significant transformation in how Iran perceives its role and interests in the Middle East.
By: By Hessam Habibi Doroh
