"Counterintuitive though it may seem, I believe that the latest Israeli strikes may actually have defused tensions," writes Ford Professor Javed Ali in an article for The Conversation, referring to Israel’s latest strike against Iran.
He writes that after Iran attacked Israel, "Many observers anticipated, or feared, an Israeli response to Iran’s October missile and drone attack to be heavy, and punishing." Instead, he said, "rather than target vital infrastructure in Iran or the country’s nuclear facilities, Israel instead opted for 'precise and targeted' strikes on the Islamic Republic’s air defense and missile capabilities."
This more limited strike Ali explained, "was signaling that it has the capability to strike at the heart of Iran, while holding back from a full-throttled attack that would have had further damaged Iran’s fragile economy."
Following that strike by Israel, Iran responded cautiously Ali said. "Iranian Foreign Ministry statement condemned the attack, noting that Iran 'had a right to self defense.' But at the same [time] it added that Iran would ' uphold its commitments for regional peace and stability.'"
Ali said Iran "may well calculate that a return to the pre-escalation status quo with Israel is in its interests." But he says, "Predicting what will happen next in the Middle East has escaped the most seasoned analysts."
He concluded, "It may take days, weeks, or even months to assess whether this latest airstrike by Israel will lead to a further escalation of tensions between Iran and Israel – or whether a more de-escalatory dynamic settles over the region.
