Iran has launched multiple rounds of ballistic missiles at Israel, aiming to project regional power and place the United States on the defensive. Analysts stated, 'Iran believes it holds the upper hand.' Despite severe economic turmoil and a lack of control over its airspace, Tehran continues to trade risk for influence.
The Wall Street Journal published an article stating that the latest round of direct hostilities between Israel and Iran has clarified Tehran’s strategic intent: to expand its regional influence through missile strikes while demonstrating its capacity to effectively retaliate under pressure from both the U.S. and Israel. Recent salvos of ballistic missiles are seen as a significant signal of Iran’s attempt to reshape the regional balance of power.
Tehran assesses that such military actions, combined with U.S. President Trump’s inclination to preserve a potential peace agreement, could compel Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to scale back military operations in Lebanon. This follows Israel’s airstrike on Beirut last Sunday, targeting Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran.
Following consecutive exchanges of fire, Iran announced on Monday a suspension of its attacks but simultaneously warned that if Israel continues its operations—including strikes in southern Lebanon—Iran would resume and potentially broaden the scope of its attacks. A source familiar with the matter revealed that Israel has also halted strikes targeting Iranian territory but will continue operations against Hezbollah.
Deterrence Capability and Risk Calculus
After enduring more than a month of sustained airstrikes by the U.S. and Israel, Iran is attempting to rebuild deterrence by showcasing critical capabilities—such as threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormuz and striking relatively vulnerable targets in Gulf states—to exert pressure on the global economy.
Although the two-month ceasefire promoted by Trump has faced repeated challenges, the White House’s reluctance to reignite large-scale hostilities is perceived as emboldening Tehran’s confidence in taking action. Ofer Guterman, Senior Research Fellow at Tel Aviv’s Institute for National Security Studies, stated, 'Iran’s decision indicates that they believe they hold the upper hand and that Trump dares not restart the war.' He added that this enables Iran to demonstrate its power in a more assertive manner.
Nevertheless, Iran still faces clear vulnerabilities, including economic hardship, limited control over its airspace, and an inability to deliver strikes on Israel sufficient to constitute strategic deterrence. However, Guterman noted that by proactively escalating tensions, Iran has partially undermined the gains achieved by the U.S. and Israel during the 12-day conflict in June last year, when Iran and Hezbollah were temporarily on the defensive.
Meanwhile, a U.S. intelligence assessment in April indicated that despite sustained strikes, Iran retained thousands of intact ballistic missiles after the first 40 days of this spring’s conflict, underscoring its capacity for sustained combat operations.
Iranian leadership is now integrating military capabilities with diplomatic strategy. Both President Pezeshkian and chief nuclear negotiator and Speaker of Parliament Ghalibaf emphasized leveraging pressure on the U.S. and Israel to secure room for negotiations.
Last week, Qalibaf stated: 'The Iranian nation has demonstrated in its struggle against the United States and the Zionist regime that the era of cost-free threats against Iran has come to an end.' This statement reflects Iran’s current shift toward a more assertive policy stance.
Since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes against Iran on February 28, a new generation of hardline leadership has clearly abandoned the previous strategy of restraint in targeting Israel and regional assets. Their objective is to restore deterrence by responding swiftly to any challenge while preventing the U.S. and Israel from crafting a narrative of 'victory' in the conflict.
Ali Vaez, Director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, noted that Iran’s actions reflect a strategic intent to link multiple theaters of conflict. He said, 'Iran is forcing Washington to confront two battlefields it had sought to keep separate, yet the key triggers for both remain outside the U.S.-Iran channel.' He added that the conflict has made Iran 'less risk-averse.'
In fact, direct confrontation between Iran and Israel is gradually becoming normalized. Prior to 2024, such open conflict was almost unthinkable, with Iran and its 'Axis of Resistance' allies largely on the defensive. As Israel continued striking Iranian targets in Lebanon and Syria—and prompted Iran’s first-ever direct attack on Israel in April 2024—the conflict escalated steadily. In the fall of the same year, following assassinations of senior Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, Iran launched another round of attacks, met with precise and highly destructive Israeli counterstrikes.
With Hezbollah’s capabilities degraded and the Assad regime in Syria having collapsed, Iran’s regional influence temporarily waned. Hezbollah was compelled to accept a ceasefire, abandoning its earlier stance of 'no truce unless Gaza sees a ceasefire.' Now, Iran seeks to reaffirm its ability to support its allies through higher-risk, direct actions.
Uncertainty Ahead
Iran-backed regional forces remain active. Since the escalation of hostilities on February 28, Iran-aligned militias in Iraq have launched drones toward Saudi Arabia, and Hezbollah has repeatedly fired on Israeli targets. These operations have expanded Iran’s reach against Israel and other regional states, including Turkey and Azerbaijan.
However, doubts remain over whether this more aggressive strategy will succeed. Israel remains committed to degrading Hezbollah and has signaled—through its retaliatory strikes against Iran—that there are limits to U.S. constraints on its military actions.
Eyal Hulata, former Israeli National Security Advisor and current member of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, pointed out a fundamental dilemma Iran faces as it tries to project a tougher image: its capacity to inflict damage on Israel remains significantly lower than Israel’s ability to strike back at Iran.
Danny Citrinowicz, former head of the Iran desk at Israel’s Defense Intelligence Agency, summarized this shift:
“In the past, it was the proxies that protected Iran, and Iran exercised great caution in its use of missiles and drones. Now the opposite is true—Iran is using its own capabilities to protect the entire ‘axis.’”
Editor/melody