Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on Wednesday said the strike amounted to an attack on Iranian soil and vowed to punish Israel. Israel’s top diplomat, Israel Katz, responded with a grave warning: “If Iran attacks from its territory, Israel will react and attack in Iran.”
Echoing this, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday said, “Whoever harms us, we will harm them.”
Would Tehran risk a direct attack? Iran is in a “strategic conundrum,” says Gregory Brew, an Iran expert at Eurasia Group. Tehran needs to respond to “restore deterrence and maintain credibility,” Brew says, but it also “remains the case that Iran does not seek a direct confrontation with either Israel or the US, and this will encourage continued restraint.”
If Iran directly targets Israel, it could spark a broader conflict amid the already devastating war in Gaza. This means Iran is likely to lean on proxies like Hezbollah or militias in Syria and Iraq in terms of its response, says Brew, which brings a degree of plausible deniability.
However Iran chooses to respond, there remains a risk that “Israel will treat it as escalatory and respond with escalation of its own, potentially dragging in the US along with it,” says Brew.
Ian Bremmer answers reader questions about geopolitical risks and potential conflicts, from the Middle East and the South China Sea to Ukraine and Venezuela.
Regional parliamentary elections began in the Pakistan-administered portion of Kashmir on Monday, but the first round of voting has been racked with violence.
Newly released Kimi K3 has become the center of a fierce debate in Washington and Silicon Valley over whether America’s “closed” approach is protecting its lead, or helping China catch up.
In his latest Quick Take, Ian Bremmer discusses the on-again off-again ceasefire between the United States and Iran and why it has failed to hold, arguing that both sides remain locked in a fundamental disagreement over who has the leverage.