 |
| Beyond Warning Shots: Why Iran-Israel Strikes May Be Steps Toward Full-Scale War |
The conflict between Iran and Israel has long captured the attention of international observers, not only for its complexity but also for its potential to spiral into a much broader war. Over recent months and years, military actions—including missile strikes, drone attacks, and cyber warfare—have increased in intensity. Yet, despite the visible escalation, many of these strikes appear carefully calibrated rather than designed to ignite a full-blown regional conflict.
This raises an essential question: Are the strikes in the Iran-Israel conflict perceived by most governments and people as mere warning shots or friendly signals rather than genuine acts of war?
The answer, while not simple, rests on a complex web of military strategy, political messaging, public perception, and historical rivalry. This article explores the nature of these strikes, how they are interpreted by international actors and the general public, and what that might mean for the future of the region.
The animosity between Iran and Israel dates back decades but has intensified particularly since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Iran’s Islamic Republic has consistently opposed the existence of the Israeli state, supporting armed groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, while Israel has viewed Iran’s nuclear ambitions as an existential threat.
In the past decade, particularly with the rise of proxy wars in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, both countries have engaged in indirect and increasingly direct confrontations. Israel has conducted hundreds of airstrikes in Syria to prevent Iran from establishing a permanent military presence there, while Iran has used its regional allies to harass Israeli positions and threaten its borders.
Despite the seemingly frequent use of military force, both Iran and Israel appear to be walking a tightrope—engaging in hostilities while avoiding all-out war.
Not all military strikes are created equal. In traditional warfare, attacks are aimed at gaining territory or destroying an enemy’s ability to fight. In the case of Iran and Israel, however, many strikes serve a different purpose: strategic signaling.
Israel’s military operations are often precise and narrowly targeted. For example, rather than launching attacks on major Iranian population centers or key national infrastructure, Israel tends to target weapons shipments, research facilities, and military installations associated with Iran’s influence in Syria or Lebanon.
The messaging behind these strikes is clear: “We are watching you. We will act if necessary. But we do not seek a wider war.”
This form of military communication is known as deterrence through action. By striking specific targets, Israel sends a warning not only to Iran but also to its proxies and international backers.
Iran, on the other hand, often responds in kind but similarly limits its actions. While Iran has the missile capabilities to cause serious damage inside Israel, it rarely uses them in full force. When Iran has launched strikes—either directly or through proxies—they tend to aim for military or symbolic targets rather than civilian areas.
For instance, after the U.S. killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020, Iran responded by striking Iraqi bases housing American troops, but deliberately avoided causing mass casualties. A similar pattern emerges in its dealings with Israel. Tehran wants to appear strong and resolute, but it does not seek direct, prolonged confrontation.
International governments closely monitor these developments. Interestingly, most of them do not interpret these strikes as the beginning of a major war but rather as "cautionary messages" sent between two powerful regional adversaries.
Western nations such as the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have consistently called for restraint. While they often reaffirm Israel’s right to defend itself, they also warn against escalating tensions. These governments seem to understand that many of the strikes are calculated moves, designed to assert dominance without sparking a larger war.
For example, when Israel strikes Iranian targets in Syria, Western governments rarely respond with major condemnation. Instead, they urge both sides to avoid miscalculation.
Neighboring Arab states, particularly those in the Gulf, walk a careful line. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates view Iran as a regional threat but are also cautious about endorsing Israeli military actions too publicly. Many Arab governments interpret the strikes as messages, not provocations.
Their fear is less about the strikes themselves and more about the possibility that one poorly aimed missile or a miscalculated response could drag the entire region into chaos.
The United Nations typically responds to Iranian or Israeli strikes with diplomatic language calling for “de-escalation” and “dialogue.” These statements reflect an understanding that while the strikes are aggressive, they are not yet acts of full-scale war.
Governments may analyze strikes with strategic insight, but public opinion often responds emotionally. Still, the general global perception leans toward viewing these strikes as calculated warnings rather than declarations of war.
Iranian public sentiment is divided:
Hardliners view the strikes as necessary acts of resistance against an enemy they believe seeks Iran’s destruction.
Moderates and reformists, however, are often more concerned with the economic and human costs of conflict. Many Iranians suffer under U.S. and international sanctions, and military escalation only worsens their situation.
Overall, while many support national pride and sovereignty, there is little appetite for full-scale war.
Among Israelis, public opinion is somewhat similar:
Most Israelis support defensive measures, especially when Iran is seen as threatening the homeland directly.
However, Israelis are not eager for war. Memories of long and costly conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon have made the public more cautious.
The Israeli public often sees these military actions as preventive, not offensive. They are meant to “buy time” and “push threats further away,” not to trigger broader conflict.
For most of the global population observing from afar, the strikes often seem like military posturing. People in Europe, Asia, and the Americas are more concerned about global economic stability and the threat of war spreading. The dominant interpretation in global media is that these are “messages,” not “moves toward war.”
Another major factor in how these strikes are perceived is the way they are portrayed in the media.
Israeli media usually emphasizes defense and precision, portraying strikes as necessary steps to protect national security.
Iranian media, particularly state-controlled outlets, frame the actions as just retaliation against Israeli aggression and emphasize Iran’s restraint.
International media tends to focus on potential consequences, often framing each strike as a “turning point” while still acknowledging that neither side appears to want all-out war.
This controlled narrative from both governments helps maintain public calm while signaling strength to international audiences.
One reason both sides can strike each other without immediately launching into a full-scale war is because much of the conflict is indirect.
Iran funds and supports groups like:
Hezbollah in Lebanon
Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Gaza
Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria
Israel, in turn, responds to these groups rather than striking directly at Iran’s homeland most of the time. This proxy model allows both sides to send messages while avoiding direct confrontation.
But this is a risky strategy. A misstep by a proxy actor could spark a more significant war. For example, if Hezbollah were to fire rockets that kill dozens of Israeli civilians, Israel might feel compelled to retaliate with massive force—even inside Iran.
The concept of strategic ambiguity plays a vital role in this dynamic. Both countries act with a degree of opacity, refusing to confirm or deny certain operations. This creates room for retreat. If a strike goes too far, they can disown it or play it down.
However, ambiguity also increases the risk of misunderstanding. If one side misreads a signal, thinking it was meant as a serious escalation, it could overreact.
This is why diplomatic communication channels—even unofficial or secret ones—are crucial in preventing miscalculation.
So, are the strikes in the Iran-Israel conflict viewed as warning shots or acts of war?
The overwhelming perception among governments, analysts, and much of the public is that they are warning shots—clear but limited actions designed to send political and military messages without tipping into open warfare.
While the danger of escalation is always present, the patterns of behavior suggest that both sides want to contain the conflict. They want to look strong at home and abroad but are not ready to pay the price of a prolonged regional war.
However, this balancing act is fragile. The more frequently these strikes occur, the greater the risk that one will go too far, killing civilians or hitting a politically sensitive target. In such a case, public pressure could force a more aggressive response, and the spiral into war could begin.
Until then, the world watches—hoping that these are just signals in the sky, not the opening shots of a war.
