Tensions between Iran and Israel have escalated to a dangerous and unprecedented level. The rivalry between these two nations has long been intense, but the latest developments signal that the region could be on the brink of a major conflict with far-reaching consequences. In a significant military maneuver, Israel on Friday launched a series of strikes into Lebanon, targeting and ultimately killing Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. This strike not only dealt a severe blow to Hezbollah, a key Iranian proxy, but more crucially it also struck at the heart of Iran’s influence in the region. Nasrallah has long been a staunch ally of Tehran and his death represents a critical loss for Iran’s strategic ambitions. Following the assassination of Nasrallah and the start of Israeli ground operations in Lebanon, Iran on Tuesday launched missile strikes targeting Israel, signaling a sudden shift in strategy. There are several plausible reasons for this abrupt change that are potentially linked to Iran’s internal calculations regarding the cost and timing of a direct military confrontation. The turning point in this escalating crisis appeared to come when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday delivered a pointed speech directly addressing the Iranian people. In his speech, Netanyahu made a thinly veiled call for regime change in Tehran — a message that the Iranian leadership interpreted as a direct threat to the stability of their government. He said: “With every passing moment, the regime is bringing you — the noble Persian people — closer to the abyss. The vast majority of Iranians know their regime doesn’t care a whit about them. If it did care, if it cared about you, it would stop wasting billions of dollars on futile wars across the Middle East. It would start improving your lives. Imagine if all the vast money the regime wasted on nuclear weapons and foreign wars were invested in your children’s education, in improving your healthcare, in building your nation’s infrastructure, water, sewage, all the other things that you need. Imagine that.” Netanyahu also expressed his conviction that peace between Iran and Israel would only be possible once Iran is “finally free,” a moment that he believes will come “a lot sooner than people think.” The Israeli military’s ground incursion into southern Lebanon this week has heightened the stakes even further. From Iran’s perspective, these actions represent a significant and direct threat. Israel’s operations appear aimed at significantly degrading Hezbollah’s military capabilities, weakening one of Iran’s most important allies in the region. Hezbollah has long served Iran’s strategic goals, acting as its geopolitical arm in Lebanon and a counterweight to Israeli influence. By targeting Hezbollah, Israel is directly challenging Iran’s influence in Lebanon and the broader Levant, posing a grave threat to its regional ambitions. The Iranian leadership interpreted Netanyahu’s message as a direct threat to the stability of their government Dr. Majid Rafizadeh The death of Nasrallah has also reverberated deeply within the Iranian leadership. He was not just a military leader but also a close personal ally of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. His loss is a symbolic blow to the Iranian regime, which has long relied on Hezbollah as a critical component of its regional strategy. The complexities of the situation are also highlighted by the fact that Iran did not respond with immediate strikes following the assassination of another key ally, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, who was killed in Tehran in July. Despite orders from the supreme leader for retaliatory strikes on Israel, Iran chose not to escalate the situation at that stage. This restraint might have been interpreted as indicative of Tehran’s broader vulnerability and reluctance to engage in a full-scale war with Israel, recognizing that such a conflict would likely be disastrous for Iran. However, this perceived inaction may have emboldened Israel, leading to the current escalation. In other words, Tehran’s decision not to follow through on its threats after the death of Haniyeh could have been interpreted by Israel as a sign of weakness, encouraging it to launch further military action. It is worth noting that there are moderate factions within the Iranian political establishment that still believe Israel is deliberately laying traps to lure Iran into a war. President Masoud Pezeshkian, for instance, last month cautioned against falling for Israel’s provocations, suggesting that Tehran should avoid taking the bait and starting a conflict that could spiral out of control. A full-fledged war with Israel would almost certainly draw in the US, a scenario that would be catastrophic for Iran. The Iranian leadership is acutely aware that its military capabilities are inferior to those of Israel and the US and such a war would be unlikely to end in its favor. In addition to its military disadvantage, Iran is also economically ill-prepared for a prolonged war. The country is already struggling with the effects of international sanctions and domestic economic mismanagement and a conflict with Israel would further exacerbate these challenges. Nevertheless, despite these constraints, Tehran obviously felt compelled to respond in some way to maintain its credibility both domestically and with its regional allies, which is why it launched about 180 missiles at Israel on Tuesday night. Failing to retaliate for the latest developments, including Nasrallah’s death, could have been seen as a sign of weakness, undermining Iran’s image. The tit-for-tat dynamic between Israel and Iran has created a highly volatile situation, in which miscalculations or provocations could easily lead to a larger conflict. This kind of brinkmanship is inherently unpredictable and there is always the risk that it could spiral out of control. In conclusion, the current situation between Iran and Israel is extremely dangerous and has the potential to affect the entire region. Both sides are engaged in a precarious cycle of provocation and retaliation, where even a small misstep could lead to a full-scale war. Such a conflict would not only affect Iran and Israel, but also draw in other countries in the region as well as global powers, potentially igniting a broader conflagration in the Middle East. • Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian American political scientist. X: @Dr_Rafizadeh Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point of view