The Iranian government has downplayed the scale and effectiveness of the Israeli attack on its military sites, but hardliners in parliament emphasized that the attacks violated Iranian red lines and required a quick response, preferably at a time when Israel is already entangled in Lebanon and Gaza.

The internal Iranian debate over how to respond to the long-awaited Israeli attack centers on whether Israel’s violation of Iranian national sovereignty should be treated as too serious to ignore, or whether the advice emanating from it should instead be heeded the region and the US comes to terms with the relatively limited nature of the attack and stepping back from the brink by not launching retaliations.

In making its decision, Iran’s political elite will have to weigh competing political, diplomatic and military pressures. But the government’s initial tone was one of patriotic pride in air defense achievements, rather than a call for immediate retaliation. Some even claimed that the air defenses proved to be better than Israel’s Iron Dome.

In what amounted to a holding statement, the State Department condemned the attack, adding: “Iran feels entitled and obligated to defend itself against foreign aggression.”

Iranian government spokesman Fatemeh Mohajerani said “only limited damage had been done” and that Iranians’ pride had been strengthened by their response to the attacks.

But an internal political debate has already begun over how to respond, likely to reiterate the differences within the political elite that have become apparent since Iran surprisingly elected reformist Masoud Pezeshkian as president, partly on a ticket to improve relations with improve the West.

Amir-Hossein Sabeti, the ultra-conservative lawmaker for Tehran, said of X: “Stable security depends on authority and a strong response to the enemy’s slightest mistake. Although the Israelis’ mountain has given birth to a mouse, the violation of the Iranian red line and the invasion of the country’s territory must be responded to at a level that will surprise them.

“The best time to respond is when they are engaged in a war of attrition in Gaza and Beirut.”

Social media called for Operation Promise 3, a reference to the code name given to Iran’s first two attacks on Israel.

In contrast, Sadegh Zibakalam, a former professor at Tehran University, said: “Israel’s early morning airstrike on Iran was more than a military achievement for Tel Aviv; it was a diplomatic success for Washington, which was able to force Netanyahu to strictly limit the attack so that Iran does not have to retaliate. Americans have shown for the umpteenth time that they want war with Iran.”

Many ridiculed Israel’s attack as weak, following the previous week’s threats to attack Iran’s oil and nuclear sites. Ebrahim Rezaei, member of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, wrote in the first minutes after the attack on I didn’t see anything. unusual. The Zionist enemy is like small change; it just makes noise, but has no value or effect. They are too weak to seriously harm Greater Iran.”

Hesamoddin Ashena, adviser to Iran’s former president Hassan Rouhani, wrote: “You were playing with the lion’s tail. This is not Palestine, nor Lebanon, nor Iraq, nor Afghanistan. This is Iran.”

Some of Iran’s major military and political players have yet to speak out.

Diplomatically, the Iranian Foreign Ministry will also listen to advice from the region, especially Saudi Arabia, with which it is trying to restore ties.

Iran will welcome messages of solidarity from across the Gulf, including Oman, Riyadh, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, signs that the country’s recent diplomatic push in the region has paid off. Such public expressions of solidarity between Iran and its Arab neighbors are not automatic.

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi echoed the widespread sentiment, saying: “We are deeply concerned by the blatant violation of aggression against Iran this morning. Fortunately, the damage appears to be limited and we fervently hope that there are no casualties.

“It is time for the world to wake up to the urgent need to address the root causes of this crisis, especially Israel’s illegal and brutal occupation of Palestinian territories.”

The Jordanian military emphasized that it had not allowed Israel to use its airspace. However, some of this Arab support will likely depend on Iran not escalating the crisis. Notably, neither Saudi Arabia nor the UAE mentioned Israel in their condemnatory statements.

Hardliners in Tehran, in turn, will wonder what this show of regional solidarity means in practice, and whether Iran’s best route to security remains, as they have always maintained, by rebuilding the battered “axis of resistance.”

On the military side, dawn allowed Iran and open source experts to map the extent of the damage, including the deaths of two Iranian army soldiers, even as the government ordered Iranians not to upload photos.

The fact that Tehran returned to normality within hours, with schools opening, traffic jams resuming and the stock market rising, raises the bar for those calling for military reprisals.

Military analysts appear to believe that Iran’s air defenses are exceeding expectations. Shahabeddin Tabatabaei, a reformist member of the Iranian government’s information council, wrote in his report on X: “The fake regime’s attack was defeated by the country’s integrated air defense system.”

But Iran knows that another attack on Israel will result in recently installed US defenses being deployed, and there is no guarantee that America will delay a further Israeli response to an Iranian attack, likely bringing the world closer to a direct Iranian-American conflict arises. the penultimate step on the escalating ladder before a full-scale regional war.

Moreover, the chain of responsibility from Iran’s perspective began with an April 1 Israeli bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, which killed nine officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iran responded on April 13 with Operation True Promise 1, a highly reported drone and missile attack.

Israel retaliated on April 18 with limited airstrikes on an air defense radar near a nuclear site in Iran.

Subsequently, Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in Tehran on July 31, and Iran-backed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was assassinated in Beirut on September 27, along with IRGC Deputy Commander of Operations Abbas Nilforoushan.

This led to Iran’s response on October 1, called Operation True Promise 2, in which 200 ballistic missiles were fired at Israel. Based on this sequence, Iran considers itself entitled to respond to restore deterrence.

Pezeshkian felt personally burned when the government chose not to respond militarily in August after Haniyeh’s killing because of indirect US assurances that the Gaza peace talks were two weeks away from a breakthrough. Subsequently, the US was unable to provide Israel’s support for the ceasefire.

So further Western promises that diplomats are on the verge of a breakthrough, either in Lebanon or Gaza, will be viewed skeptically in Tehran.

Ceasefire talks in Gaza are set to restart on Sunday and there are some signs that the Israeli army may want a break in Lebanon. In this context, if Iran decided to end its relationship with Israel on this third and most dangerous front, no one would be happier than the White House. Some confidence would be restored in the ability to de-escalate events. But at this point, such pre-election hailmary seems unlikely.