Analysis by
.Iran’s strikes on Israel this week were some of its most audacious attempts yet to redefine the boundaries of a confrontation that for decades has largely been fought through proxies, covert operations and carefully calibrated retaliation.
Since the April 8 US-Iran ceasefire, Tehran has repeatedly accused Israel and the United States of eroding the truce through military action. The US has carried out strikes on Iranian targets even as indirect negotiations continued. Israel, meanwhile, has launched nearly 3,500 strikes in Lebanon, according to the country’s prime minister, including in the capital Beirut, despite restrictions imposed by the truce.
Iran responded with a series of calibrated retaliatory strikes against US and Gulf targets, while warning that if diplomacy failed it was prepared to resume the war and expand it beyond the Persian Gulf, potentially threatening shipping routes stretching from the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.
Overnight Tuesday into Wednesday there were renewed exchanges of fire between the US and Iran following the downing of a US Army helicopter earlier in the week, underscoring the ongoing precariousness across the region.
Iran’s strikes on Israel signal broader shift
This week’s strikes on Israel, however, appeared to mark a further step. Tehran signaled that Israeli military action against its regional allies could also trigger a direct Iranian response. The objective was to break the diplomatic deadlock in talks to reach an interim peace agreement and support Hezbollah.
“We have overturned the ceasefire equation that existed on paper while being repeatedly violated in practice on the ground,” Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s chief negotiator in the talks, said Monday. “Until there is a genuine willingness to build trust, Iran’s response will remain the same.”
Iran has insisted it will not allow Israel and the US to continue their attacks while claiming to remain committed to a ceasefire that Tehran says is being repeatedly violated. “Under no circumstances” would it accept such an arrangement, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Monday.
The move suggests a broader shift in Tehran, where a new generation of leaders is increasingly abandoning the cautious, reactive approach that long defined the Islamic Republic’s strategy towards its adversaries. Rather than relying primarily on deterrence and strategic patience, they now appear more willing to take risks and to deploy Iran’s military, economic and regional leverage to shape events in the Middle East.
It is also the same Iranian leadership that US President Donald Trump has described as “more rational” and “pretty reasonable.”
“The Iranians have put both the Israelis and the US in a box now,” Aaron David Miller, a former US Middle East peace negotiator, told CNN’s Jessica Dean. “They’re risk ready. They think they’re winning. They don’t think the ceasefire is serving their interests.”
In 2020, the first Trump administration broke a longstanding taboo by assassinating Qasem Soleimani, the highest-ranking Iranian official killed by the United States at the time. Tehran’s response, under the leadership of then-Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, reflected his preference for calibrated retaliation over uncontrolled escalation: Iran launched a missile strike at a US airbase in Iraq after warnings were passed on that gave US forces time to seek shelter.
In June 2025, when the US joined Israel in attacking Iran, Tehran again opted for a proportional response, signaling that despite its fiery rhetoric it still viewed escalation management as necessary.
This week’s strikes on Israel suggest that calculation may be changing. “This is the first time in decades that a regional power has the means, capacity, and willingness to put hard power against Israeli military maneuvers or aggression against a third party,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, a US foreign policy think tank.
Following the attack, Iran warned that it was prepared to “raise the level of tension” to challenge what it described as Israeli and American assumptions about the limits of its response.
“If the Israelis and Americans imagine that through ‘controlled tension’ they can make Iran and (its proxy network) the Resistance Front predictable in the face of their crimes, or limit the type of Iran’s response, they are committing a foolish mistake,” an unidentified military source was cited as saying by Tasnim news agency, which is close to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC.)
Tehran is seeking to create a “new equation” that aims to prevent Israel from acting not only against Iran itself but also its proxy network in the region, Danny Citrinowicz, former head of the Iran branch in Israeli military intelligence, told CNN’s Becky Anderson.
“The events of the past 24 hours once again demonstrated that Iran’s current leadership increasingly believes that whatever cannot be achieved through diplomacy can ultimately be achieved through the use of force,” he wrote on X.
Exploiting cracks in the US-Israel relationship
Iran also appears to be testing the US-Israel alliance and exploiting growing differences between the two countries over the conflict’s endgame. Trump has publicly broken with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on several occasions in recent weeks, insisting that a diplomatic agreement with Tehran is within reach and asserting that Israel “won’t have any choice” but to accept it.
That strategy may be yielding results. After Iran attacked Israel on Monday, Trump moved quickly to prevent further escalation, speaking with Netanyahu twice within hours in an effort to dissuade him from retaliating.
Baghaei, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, said Washington “bears responsibility” for Israel’s actions and warned that they would “inevitably” affect the diplomatic process. An Israeli military official, meanwhile, stressed that US forces played no role in the attacks on Iran, though they did assist in intercepting incoming Iranian missiles.
Iran may have succeeded in forcing Washington to make a choice between supporting Israel’s military freedom of action and preserving a diplomatic track with Tehran.
Trump’s pressure on Netanyahu has “added another chit to the pot” for Iran, said Miller, referring to Tehran’s new leverage. “Which will be the creation of a new norm.”
CNN’s Aida Karimi, Nadeen Ebrahim and Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report.
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.