Tehran is considering how to respond to a powerful strike by the Israeli army that is more diplomatic than has significant economic or military consequences - damaging the Iranian diplomatic mission. FT observers believe that Israel has raised the stakes in the war, which has already engulfed more than one country in the East, after the Hamas attack on the Jewish state on October 7. The Middle East expects a powerful response from Iran, but there is a high probability that Tehran will only decide on some symbolic steps.

[see_also ids\u003d"

Previous lessons - strikes on Iran and Tehran's response.

In 2020, Iran promised harsh revenge for the killing of Qassem Soleimani, a symbol of the Islamic Republic.. Indeed, Tehran fired ballistic missiles at a US base in Iraq. However, as facts show, Iran notified the United States of its intentions in advance. Thus, Tehran played a double game - it satisfied the aggressive appetite for revenge among its own electorate and at the same time prevented a direct military clash with the United States.

There was a similar story with the result during threats to kill another military head of an Islamist state. Iran, according to the FT, is now faced with a dilemma - how to prevent a further attack on Iranian interests without being drawn into a war that could have fatal consequences.

Why Iran is at a fork in the road and what this means for the unity of the “anti-event”?

After the attack on the Iranian diplomatic mission, a decisive response is expected among states that consider Iran the leader of the anti-Western coalition. “Responses are necessary to maintain balance, to contain,” says Lebanese analyst Kassem Kassir.

However, even Iranian analysts believe that a direct military conflict should not be expected, although there are threats of countermeasures that would have serious consequences.

“The danger for Iran is that a retaliation that is perceived as weak could risk bolstering Iran's reputation and affect the morale of all its supporters, including Hamas. However, a more aggressive response could plunge the country into direct confrontation with Israel and possibly the US, which the regime is believed to be keen to avoid..

Moreover, external rhetoric and hostility towards the United States has always been offset by the pragmatism of Iran's leaders. This is why Iran maintains a balance and exists as a more or less stable state, even with such harsh anti-Western rhetoric.

In Tehran, according to the publication, they fear that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be seeking to push Iran towards direct confrontation. And this will destroy the very precarious balance in the Middle East, concludes the publication, publication.

Analyzing the situation, one can compare Iran’s actions with the actions of diplomacy in the United States and some European countries, which, while maintaining their commitment to Ukraine, at the same time are trying to act so as not to be on the verge of a direct conflict with Russia, maintaining some kind of, albeit ephemeral, balance of power.

Foreign Affairs previously noted that on April 1, Israeli warplanes attacked a building in Damascus that is part of the Iranian embassy, \u200b\u200bkilling at least 11 people. Tehran has not yet responded. But when he does, the scale and nature of his actions will help answer the fundamental question underlying much of the debate about the current situation in the Middle East: has American deterrence against Iran worked