After the Israeli regime's attack on some of Iran's defense sites, tensions between Iran and the Zionist regime reached a peak. This crisis escalated after the regime's attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, and Iran's response with Operation True Promise 1.
Operation True Promise 2 was carried out in response to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas' political bureau, and other acts of aggression by the Zionist regime targeting prominent figures of the resistance front, which was accompanied by a missile attack on Israel. These events raised many questions about Iran's strategy in dealing with the threats of the Israeli regime.
Many experts and media outlets have raised the question of whether Iran intends to carry out Operation True Promise 3 in response to the recent actions of the Israeli regime.
Various explanations have been given by the country's political, defense, and security officials in response to this question, but less attention has been paid to the strategic dimensions and consequences of Iran's response or lack thereof.
Some believe that Iran should respond strongly to maintain its deterrence and send a decisive message to the enemy. On the other hand, past experiences show that Iran has always adopted a balanced and measured approach to prevent the escalation of tensions.
Iran's deterrence against threats
Over the past decades, Iran has demonstrated that its foreign policy is based on intelligent actions aimed at maintaining deterrence, and it has always strived to effectively utilize its political, defense, and security capabilities to manage external threats while avoiding an unwanted large-scale war.
Iran's strategy is based on the principle that deterrence does not necessarily mean an immediate and harsh response, but in some cases, it can be achieved by adopting a balanced and measured approach. This approach is designed to avoid getting caught in a cycle of retaliatory actions that could lead to a full-scale war.
Iran's balanced approach to reducing tensions
Contrary to what some may believe, Iran is neither seeking to escalate tensions nor willing to engage in a costly war. Instead, it has tried to act in a way that demonstrates its power and resolve while preventing the escalation of conflicts. Operation True Promise 1 and 2 can be analyzed within this framework: targeted and controlled responses to send a message to the enemy without fueling a large-scale war.
Challenges ahead for Iran
However, adopting such an approach also has its own challenges. One of these challenges is managing the enemy's calculations. Iran's limited and targeted responses may be interpreted by some actors, such as the Israeli regime, as an opportunity to continue their attacks. In such circumstances, Iran's goal should be not only to deter new attacks but also to create a correct understanding in the enemy's mind about the costs of its actions.
Notable scenarios
Although analyzing the current complex situation indicates that Iran is not inclined to escalate tensions, the possibility of Operation True Promise 3 cannot be ruled out. Iran will try to convey a message to the enemy through this operation that any violation of red lines will have a fitting response. However, such a response should be designed to prevent the escalation of conflicts.
Iran has always emphasized that regional security and stability are its top priority. Therefore, any action taken by Iran should be in line with this objective. Adopting a balanced approach that creates deterrence while preventing the escalation of tensions is the key to managing this crisis. Iran has shown that it has the ability to combine strategic rationality with defensive power, and this can contribute to maintaining regional stability.
The future will reveal how Operation True Promise 3 will contribute to achieving this goal. What is certain is that Iran's priority is regional peace and stability, not the escalation of conflicts.
NOURNEWS