Since the rise of the Islamic Republic, Iran's leadership has demonstrated ambitions for expansion and dominance in the region. Since 1979, this country has viewed chaos and instability as an opportunity to advance its interests and influence. Iranian leaders are, even now, exploiting and escalating the conflict in the region to advance the status of their regime, weaken and delegitimize Israel, undermine Western interests, and further reshape the regional order in their favor. But for Iran's regime, survival trumps any other priority, so they are again very careful to protect it at all costs, as they have, in fact, for the past 40 years.

Iran's attack on Israel was a significant act with clear objectives; it was carefully designed not to escalate into a full-scale war. This operation was unprecedented in its scope, but was successfully maintained thanks to the use of the Israeli defense force, which is configured to withstand such attacks extremely effectively.

Let’s remember that during the first day of Operation Iraqi Freedom, in 2003, the US released 500 high-precision weapons. Meanwhile, Iran's operation included 320 such within a five-hour interval, as General Mark Hertling commented. This amount and pace of attack was significant, but it seemed calculated to avoid pushing Israel into an extreme military response.

The methodology, after such an attack by Iran, seemed to reflect the Russian tactics used in Ukraine: a mix of drones, missiles of various types, including ballistics. They were launched in a coordinated manner to challenge and overwhelm Israeli air defenses, reaching their destination in the same time window. This tactic was intended to "saturate" Israel's air defense systems, creating a maximum strain on their ability to intercept incoming attacks. But, contrary to expectations and Iranian propaganda, Israel and its allies practically stopped over 90% of these weapons, especially if compared to the Ukrainian defense, which on average manages to destroy only about 45% of similar attacks.

Iran has, certainly, not fully taken into account the regional dynamics, especially the direct engagement of Jordan, the dynamic sharing of information between Israel with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and the broad coalition of Western allies that supported Israel with direct engagement. According to The Economist - The Persian Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, may have played an additional indirect role, by 'hosting' Western air defense systems and making areas available for surveillance and refueling of fighter jets, aid these that were vital during those hours.

The geographical distance of about 1,600 km between Iran and Israel, also, gave Israel the necessary reaction time, which, together with early warnings and information sharing, made possible a more coordinated defense effort.

This attack highlighted the strong military cooperation between Israel and its regional Arab allies. Such partnerships, which enhance mutual defense capabilities against threats, underline a significant shift in regional military alliances and strategy.

Ironically, while Iran intended to demonstrate its military capacity and retaliatory resolve, the attack does not appear to have achieved its intended psychological or strategic impact. On the contrary, this aggression exposed the limitations of Iran's capabilities and, thus, appears to have lowered the threshold for adversaries against Iranian targets in the future. On the other hand, the analysis dictates that the operation "Revenge of the True Promise" caused little damage, but, as an Iranian source explained to the Financial Times, "it revealed that we are crazier than you think and ready to face all consequences."

The geopolitical scope of this event is profound. This attack has not only reduced the isolation that Israel felt for its actions in Gaza, but also put Russia and China in delicate positions. Both countries have tried to balance their support for Iran with calls for restraint, a stance that may reduce their influence in the Middle East, but in the meantime it is clear that these countries have an interest that the conflict in the Middle East remains unpredictable and overextended. Tehran sees regional dominance as a chance to further strengthen its relationship with Russia and China. The interests of these countries coincide for the most part, keeping Washington and its allies mired in a crisis in the Middle East that damages its reputation and drains military and financial capacities, which in turn are especially lacking in the defense of Ukraine at this critical moment. . It is worth mentioning that in early March, China, Iran and Russia launched a joint naval exercise, the fourth of its kind in the last five years, in the Gulf of Oman.

As Israel ponders its next move, the debate within the War Cabinet is indicative of a broader strategic calculus — whether to respond with significant force against Iranian targets or adopt a more constrained approach to prevent a regional escalation. However, the longer Israel delays its response to Iran's attack, the more difficult it will be to gain international support for such an attack.

The global context is equally important. As time passes, the stance of the Biden administration and other international partners is clearly shifting toward favoring diplomatic solutions over military responses, as highlighted by the urgent meeting of G7 leaders and subsequent individual statements.

So, in today's world, in which all forms of interaction seem to be militarized, although Iran has failed in its short-term military objectives, it has created the conditions and prepared the ground for a complex interaction of military strategy, diplomatic relations, and the dynamics of regional alliances, making it necessary for all of us to make fundamental changes in the way we think and act, especially in terms of security. Although security remains much broader than defense, there is no doubt that defense is and will remain a dictum in any security strategy. We need a paradigm shift in collective defense preventing the misunderstanding of "the rest against the West".

It is essential to act with determination and vision to re-dimension our collective efforts to prevent the appearance of such challenges to international institutions, or to an opposing alliance along a new axis, potentially catalyzed by conflict in the Middle East or elsewhere. Our response must be consistent with our democratic principles, consistently applied around the world, as demonstrated in Ukraine. Such a principled stance is in support of global security and will strengthen the international order.