Iran's new deterrence doctrine: more dangerous in the short term, weaker in the long run - analysis

There is good news and bad news in the wake of Iran's latest missile attacks on Israel. The bad news is that we are witnessing an emboldened, overly confident, risk-taking and radicalized Iranian regime, which is exhibiting a dramatic transformation in its deterrence doctrine.

In the past, any attack on Iran or its interests was met by strategic patience, with Iran taking its time to thoroughly calculate its response at a time and place of its choosing. Now, under its current hardline leadership, it is displaying a strong sense of self-confidence and willingness to engage its advisories directly, and swiftly.

Iran is also attempting to establish a new equation, in which any Israeli strike on Lebanon, including the south of the country, will be answered with an Iranian attack on Israel. This is an unacceptable equation for Israel, which is already showing that it will not allow it.

Why has Iran's deterrence doctrine changed? With the elimination of its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iran not only lost its experienced commander-in-chief, but also its main source of strategic patience. Absent of a moderating factor, the Iranian regime is much more willing to embark on military adventures, regardless of the damage it suffers in response. Add to that a sense of achievement over its seizure of the Strait of Hormuz and largely unanswered attacks on Gulf Arab countries, Tehran's regional posturing has become unrecognizable.

This is bad news for the global economy, as we're witnessing in the Strait of Hormuz, and also for Gulf Arab countries, who continue to suffer from unprovoked Iranian aggression. It is also potentially bad news for Israel, which has to come to terms with a new reality of "rounds of escalation," with an increased threat that the regime will seek to break away to nuclear weapons capabilities in the near future.

That's the bad news. The good news is that Iran's actions over the past 24 hours represent a complete collapse of its decades-long proxy doctrine. By establishing its so-called "ring of fire" around Israel, through its proxies in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, Iran sought to have its Arab lackeys do the dirty work for it, keeping the fight away from Iran proper.

What is happening now is the complete reversal of that strategy. Rather than the proxies fighting for Iran, Iran is fighting for its proxies, attacking Israel to save Hezbollah. Iran has already lost Hamas, which has become inconsequential in effectively threatening Israel. Tehran fears Hezbollah will suffer the same fate if it leaves it to fend for itself. There are many claiming that Hezbollah has already been defeated. Residents of northern Israel will claim otherwise.

And so, with the dust from Iran's unprovoked attacks on Israel and attempt to establish a new equation vis-à-vis Lebanon not yet settled, it remains unclear what Iran has actually achieved by attacking Israel. The IDF intercepted all the missiles it launched at Israeli territory, while all Israeli strikes hit their mark, including a key petrochemical complex, and the IDF continues to strike in southern Lebanon. The attempt to link between Iran and Lebanon has so far failed.

What is clear, however, is that in the short term, Iran has become a more immediate tactical threat to Israel, showing a willingness to engage it directly, contrary to decades of restraint and strategic patience. Recognizing this, Israelis should prepare to a new dynamic of rounds of escalation with Iran moving forward. As long as the Islamic regime exists, so will the immediate threat on Israel.

But strategically, Iran has no direct levers of pressure over Israel, short of attempting to pressure US President Trump to curb Israeli military action. It tried to create one last night, and didn't succeed. We've likely not heard the last word from Iran, but the more it engages Israel directly, the more it exposes its weakness in the long-run.