Israel has left Iran little choice but to enter the battlefield

Israel's long-anticipated strikes on Iran over the weekend may have officially drawn Tehran into a regional war.

The strikes hit key Iranian assets, including air defences near the Iraqi border in Ilam, ballistic missile facilities, and sites previously associated with Iran's nuclear ambitions, though vacated since 2003.

Iran's official media presented these as successful intercepts of Israeli missiles, a message intended to reassure an increasingly sceptical Iranian public questioning both the purpose of this war and the value of Iran's investments in external allies across Iraq and Lebanon.

But for Iran, the stakes have escalated beyond regional influence. The confluence of military, diplomatic, and ideological currents has now left it contemplating a role on the front lines of a conflict that had, until recently, been conducted through proxies alone.

How it started

Iran's leaders first began to realise that the Hamas-led attacks against Israel on Oct. 7 would have far-reaching repercussions for the region after the mysterious deaths of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Amir Hossein Abdollahian.

After the officials died in a plane crash in East Azerbaijan in May, there was much speculation amid both conservative and reformist voices in Iran's political corridors over the incident.

Despite the government's official claim of a "weather-related accident," many high-ranking officials in Iran remain convinced that the Israeli government had a hand in orchestrating the crash.

The suspicion resonates strongly within the upper echelons of Iranian leadership, both on the front lines and within the secondary ranks, fueling a widespread belief that Israel's covert involvement aimed to draw Iran into a war it could not ignore.

However, Iranian officials stopped short of announcing this publicly, apprehensive that an official accusation would pressure Iran into responding because that is what both the Iranian populace and the "axis of resistance," a coalition of military factions tied to Iran across Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, would expect to happen as retaliation for Raisi and Abdollahian's deaths.

Such a response, Iranian officials feared, could lead them directly into open conflict with Israel.

In private conversations I held with insiders in Iran's ruling circles, it became clear that Tehran sought swift elections to stabilise the country after Raisi's death and address Iran's severe economic turmoil, which the incident had only exacerbated.

Iran managed to hold a presidential election within just 40 days after Raisi's death, bringing Masoud Pezeshkian into office in July. But, a few weeks later, and in a stunning turn of events, Israel assassinated Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in the heart of Tehran, in one of the country's most secure areas.

At that moment, Iran was forced to rethink its traditional stance, which had long centred around supporting other regional players while staying clear of direct confrontation.

Abandoning 'forward defence'

In response, Iran began considering new avenues, abandoning a strategy rooted in its Iran-Iraq War-era policy of "forward defence," which sought to strengthen proxy military forces outside Iran to counterbalance its historic adversaries, Israel and the United States.

According to my sources – insiders with close connections to Iran's decision-makers – neither Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei nor his advisors anticipated that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would attempt to extend the current conflict directly into Iranian territory.

Iranian leaders had presumed that Israel would contain its assaults to Iran's regional proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, its military presence in Syria, and Iran-backed Shia militias in Iraq. No one had expected direct attacks on Iranian soil.

Iran has publicly instructed Hezbollah to avoid direct combat with Israel, emphasising instead a war of attrition targeting Israel's northern border.

But this position changed following last month's assassination of Hezbollah's Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah, and the pager attacks in Lebanon and Syria that stoked anger within Iran.

Relying on indirect influence through proxies alone risked undermining Iran's standing in the region, painting it as a weakened player in the face of its long-standing allies and rivals.

Onto the battlefield

Before committing openly to a direct role in the regional conflict against Israel, Iran moved to rally diplomatic support from regional and global allies, eager to affirm the legitimacy of its course of action.

Then Iran declared its entrance onto the battlefield in September, marking its ambition to reshape the region's trajectory, contrary to Netanyahu's ambitions.

Following Iran's initial retaliatory moves, which included the firing of hundreds of ballistic missiles at Israel, Netanyahu issued severe threats of "overwhelming" retaliation.

Iran's political rhetoric has ratcheted up in response, led by Supreme Leader Khamenei and reinforced by parliamentary figures and human rights officials, who strongly opposed underestimating or downplaying Israel's response.

Iran's Foreign Minister, Abbas Araqchi, has delivered particularly aggressive statements, pledging to take the issue to the United Nations Security Council to seek punishment for Israel, while also stressing Iran's capability to defend its interests, even if those interests lie beyond its borders.

Initially after Oct. 7, Iran championed a war of attrition, urging Hezbollah to adopt this strategy.

However, with Israel breaching Iranian territory, Tehran found itself propelled by a new political agenda: it could no longer afford to stand by passively or rely solely on its allies – even loyal ones– to achieve its regional objectives, like disrupting or delaying normalisation efforts.

Iran realised it would have to take direct action, reshaping the landscape itself amid the current volatility and an American administration preoccupied with its elections.

In the wake of Israel's attacks, Iran has decided to adopt a public stance in the region that positions it as a direct military rival to Israel. Tehran has conveyed the message that it will respond to Israel's regional threat both politically and militarily if necessary, knowing that having and relying solely on its regional proxies could come at a high price.

Additionally, any delay in entering the fray directly, Iranian leaders now see, would severely impact its regional influence.

Iran's direct confrontation approach is bolstered by strengthened alliances with Russia and China, whose backing has emboldened Tehran's stance. Alongside its strategic moves, Iran has engaged Middle Eastern nations diplomatically, casting itself as a victim of Israeli aggression and warning that ignoring its grievances could unleash unpredictable consequences.

This article is published in collaboration with Egab.