Iran’s recent military actions against Israel mark a major departure from its traditional reliance on proxy forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The roots of this change can be traced back to the Israeli airstrike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus on April 1, 2024. This attack led to the death of seven members of the IRGC, including two key generals, and caused widespread defection. Despite international outcry, a UN Security Council statement drafted by Russia condemning the strike was vetoed by the United States, Britain and France. The veto underscored the country’s flexibility to protect Israel from retaliation, increasing Iran’s willingness to retaliate in defense of its national honor.
The subsequent escalation was not just a matter of tactical reaction but reflected the depth of Iran’s nationalism and strategic thinking. Richard Ned Lebow A Cultural Theory of International Relations provides an important lens to understand these actions. According to Lebow, states, like individuals, are driven by honor, self-awareness and revenge. Iran’s direct contact with Israel through Operation True Promise on April 13, 2024, marked an important moment in Tehran’s military strategy. For the first time, Iran launched a large-scale attack on its territory, including more than 200 drones and missiles, some of which successfully penetrated Israel’s defenses despite attempts by the US, UK, and Jordan to intercept them. The operation, coordinated by Hezbollah and Iranian-backed militias, was both a retaliatory measure and a strategic demonstration of Iran’s growing military power and regional influence. On October 1, 2024, Iran launched another array of 180 missiles at Israeli territory, which Iranian officials described as a “reasonable and legitimate response” to Israel’s recent assassination of key coalition leaders, including the leader of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. The move underscored Iran’s stance on protecting its national honor and strategic interests.
In response, on October 28, 2024, Israel carried out additional airstrikes on Iranian missile and drone production facilities. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei gave a limited response to the strikes, saying the attacks should not be “exaggerated or downplayed” while refusing to promise immediate retaliation. This situation reflects Iran’s commitment to strategic tolerance and respect-oriented resilience, which shows calculated restraint in the face of direct provocation.
By engaging directly, rather than through proxies, Iran asserted its national prestige and military power, demonstrating that Israel is no longer an untouchable in the region. This shift in strategy is consistent with Iran’s broader geopolitical goals of challenging Israeli dominance and Western influence, while strengthening its leadership role within the “Axis of Resistance.” Iran’s direct military engagement with Israel reflects its national prestige, showing its allies and enemies that it is an independent country unwilling to tolerate challenges to its reputation, a sentiment deeply embedded in Lebow’s framework of honor as the driving force behind state behavior. In this context, Iran’s actions are not only functional but part of a calculated effort to restore prestige, rally regional allies, and redefine its role in an increasingly globalized Middle East.
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reinforces this idea by promoting unity and collective power as mandated by God, drawing directly from Quranic verses. In a Friday sermon in Tehran, he said, “If you Muslims have communication, cooperation, and unity with each other, the mercy of Allah will be upon you.” Then [the verse] he says: “The dignity (‘izzat) of Allah and the wisdom (ḥikmat) of Allah will be with the Muslims in unity and harmony.” Referring to these Quranic verses, Khamenei presented this idea of ʿizzat—dignity—as the main motivating principle that transcends political alliances, building Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah and Hamas as part of a shared religious campaign to fight oppression and raise the dignity of the Muslim community. .
These strikes, therefore, were not just tactical but strategically calculated to balance Iran’s need to maintain respectability without fueling uncontrolled escalation. Iranian officials aim not only to retaliate but also to demonstrate that Israel is not an untouchable force in the region. The operation demonstrated Iran’s ability to strike Israeli targets from multiple locations within its territory, underscoring its ability to reach critical Israeli assets if necessary. While respect requires a visible response to Israel’s violence, fear—which is the balancing force in Lebow’s framework—moderates Iran’s actions, guiding its decisions to avoid uncontrolled escalation while protecting its sovereign position. This show of force allowed Iran to maintain its dignity while carefully managing the risks of escalation. Despite the interception of most of the projectiles by Israel and allied defense systems, Iran’s ability to penetrate Israel’s defenses with ballistic missiles marked a major change in its strategy and military capabilities. These events reveal a military development that points to Iran’s readiness for confrontation, and highlights its growing influence on regional power.
Lebow emphasizes the important role of honor—the motivation to be recognized and respected—in shaping state behavior, especially in situations like Iran’s. While mainstream theories of international relations prioritize material interests and strategic calculations, Lebow argues that respect, standing, and recognition are embedded in state action. In the case of Iran, its missile attacks can be seen as a calculated fulfillment of responsible motives, reflecting a desire to restore national honor and assert sovereignty over perceived violations. These strikes act not only as acts of revenge, based on Iran’s cultural and religious framework, but also as carefully measured responses that avoid full-scale conflict. Lebow’s concept of honor helps explain how Iran’s actions are driven by more than just material things—honor, identity, and the pursuit of revenge are primary motivations. By engaging in these limited military responses, Iran is satisfying both its cultural imperatives and strategic goals, asserting its sovereignty and avoiding uncontrolled proliferation. This shows that Iran’s actions, far from being preoccupied, are deeply in line with Lebow’s understanding of being respected as a powerful driver in international relations.
The Shiite framework, especially within the Husayn-Karbala paradigm, deepens Iran’s approach to respect and resistance, showing commitment not only to national dignity but also to religious work. The Supreme Leader also reinforces this work by saying, “the dignity (ʿizzat) of Allah and the wisdom (ḥikmat) of Allah will support the united Muslims, enabling them to overcome obstacles and enemies alike.” In this context, Iran’s solidarity with Hezbollah and Hamas is accompanied by a religious commitment to protect the oppressed, especially the Palestinians, positioning Iran not only as a political player but as a guardian of Islamic honor and unity.
In this conflict with Israel, this concept has been invoked to include the deaths of important people such as members of the IRGC, Hezbollah leaders Hassan Nasrallah and Hashem Safieddine, and Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh as martyrs in the ongoing struggle and Israel suppressing Iran’s missiles. they are not just acts of revenge; they fulfill a larger ideological narrative, drawing on the Shiite work of resistance to oppression. These actions go beyond their current military goals, reinforcing Iran’s self-image as the protector of the oppressed, especially the Palestinians, and its leadership within the “Axis of Resistance.” By invoking the holy duty of avenging injustice and honoring the martyrs, as Ayatollah Khamenei emphasized, Iran is strengthening its influence among Shiite communities and regional allies, consolidating support under a shared narrative of resistance.
Thus, Iran’s missiles serve symbolic and strategic purposes. On the symbolic front, they serve as a restoration of honor and the fulfillment of a culturally ingrained need for revenge, especially when Iran sees its sovereignty or religious duty as violated. This need for respect is deeply tied to Iran’s national identity, which is heavily influenced by Shiite ideology and historical narratives of dissent. Therefore, the missile attack affects the wider society and political circles of Iran as a necessary response to the degradation of their dignity and religious values. At the same time, these actions reinforce Iran’s broad goal of thinking: to strengthen its leadership within the “Axis of Resistance” against Israel and the West, especially in the context of defending the Palestinian cause. As Ayatollah Khamenei said, “the dignity and wisdom of Allah” will support united Muslims, helping them fight against their oppressors. This framing enables Iran to present its military actions as both a strategic move and part of a divine mission, reinforcing its position as the region’s protector of oppressed Muslims.
The wider political implications of these actions are profound. While the physical damage from the strikes may be limited, their symbolic weight is enormous. Iran’s ability to penetrate deep into Israeli territory challenges the long-held perception of Israel’s military invulnerability and changes regional power. These strikes also serve as a message to the US that Iran is a capable military player, capable of engaging in direct conflict when needed. This complicates the US position in the region. Despite its consistent support for Israel, changing global dynamics—including the rise of pluralism—mean that American hegemony is increasingly being challenged by emerging powers such as China and Russia. Iran’s actions show its compatibility with this dynamic world order, asserting itself as a regional power capable of influencing the state of affairs in the Middle East.
Looking ahead, if Iran continues its strategy of direct contact, several consequences could reshape the regional power landscape. Iran’s focus on fighting the US and Israel instead of posing a threat to neighboring Arab countries opens a window for regional unity. Recognizing this common goal, Arab and Muslim countries in the region may find strategic alignment with Iran beneficial, creating a unified deterrent that challenges Israel’s policies and limits its influence. This alliance could strengthen a broader “Axis of Resistance,” fostering a regional base centered on a shared commitment to warding off external aggression. However, balancing respect-driven action with strategic prevention remains important; any escalation risks depleting resources and drawing the region into wider conflict. Therefore, Iran’s evolving military doctrine reflects not only a response to immediate threats but also a long-term vision to redefine power dynamics in a diverse Middle East through strategic partnerships and collective resistance.
Further Studies in E-International Relations
Source link
