One of the dilemmas that Iran has faced and may have pushed it to respond to Israel with a missile strike is the criticism that it has failed to respond to ongoing Israeli attacks. The latest of these missile strikes was the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, the most important regional agent in Tehran's strategy to use proxies to retaliate against Israel.

In response to the criticism, Revolutionary Guards deputy leader Sardar Yadollah Javani, during a meeting in Qazvin Province in Iran, said that not only must the scene be analysed, but any retaliation against Israel must be carried out rationally and with careful planning and evaluation. "We listen to the orders of the revolution's leader and will not hesitate for a moment to protect the country's national interest," he said.

Iran is also considered lax regarding its reactions to the events of October 7. Iran's rulers have also been trying to promote the fact that since the Israeli attacks a year ago.

"There were two groups promoting the necessity of a military response; the first had feelings of sympathy and a belief that Iran's failure to take military action could negatively affect the revolutionary and religious body and cause disappointment. The forces supporting the resistance must take a firm and strict approach to confronting the enemies of Islam and the resistance," Javani said.

The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah is not only a military incident but also constitutes a fundamental threat to the "axis of resistance". The Iranian revolution lives on among the younger generation. This group believes that the response to Israel must be clear and decisive, that the axis of resistance is still strong, and that any attack on it will be met with a harsh response.

The other group promoting military intervention is linked to the hardline movement. It criticises a reformist government and the security institutions which, they argue, have been lax in defending Iran's security.

The Iranian regime has also promoted the idea that in political, strategic, and regional issues, it is necessary to be patient and rational and not to be carried away by emotions. However, this contradicts the rationale of the Iranian revolution, which works to inflame the feelings of the people of the region towards some issues.

Tehran's response to the Israeli strike

How did Tehran strike Israel?

First, the "Al-Aqsa Flood" made Iran feel proud and victorious, and consequently, it was able to pressure Israel. Iran also called for mobilizing the so-called "unity of arenas," especially Hezbollah, which represents the "support front," and then working to fuel new hotbeds of conflict and tension in the region, such as the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.

However, Iranian pride has turned into anticipation and uncertainty despite the above. Any move that Iran makes may have dangerous repercussions because of Israeli power and Netanyahu's pride.

More than a year ago, there was deterrence between Iran and Israel and a commitment by Israel and the "Axis of Resistance" militias to the rules of engagement.

However, it now seems that America and other Western allies have given Netanyahu the green light to deal with these militias. Netanyahu has announced that his goal now is to assassinate senior militia leaders and undermine their capabilities, not necessarily to eliminate them to make them unable to threaten Israel.

Another dilemma for Iran is the lack of reliable and trained leaders, especially since Hassan Nasrallah has been killed. He trained militia leaders in Syria and Iraq and the Houthis, after the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, to create a network of agents.

As Israel continues to assassinate senior leaders of Hezbollah and their deputies, Iran suffers from a lack of reliable leaders. It does not have many options that it can rely on and can avoid a comprehensive war with Israel.

Photo:  After the Al Aqsa Flood, Iran felt proud and victorious and has given it the belief that it can pressure Israel.​ (by Adobe).

(Photos by Adobe).

‍