Israel lost escalation dominance: What comes next?

Israel’s strategic position in the Middle East is under unprecedented strain following Iran’s ballistic missile attack on 1 October. The missile barrage, which followed Israel’s assassination of key Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) figures, demonstrates Tehran’s shifting strategy and its attempt to regain escalation dominance in the region. As Israel evaluates its next steps, it faces a critical dilemma: how to respond forcefully to the Iranian attack without triggering a full-scale regional war that could spiral out of control, threatening both Israel’s security and the broader geopolitical balance.

At the core of this conflict is Iran’s desire to reassert its dominance in the region, particularly as it relates to Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon. Tehran relies on Hezbollah as a vital ally to project power across Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. However, Hezbollah’s weakening military and political position in Lebanon poses a significant challenge to Iran’s broader goals. A further deterioration of Hezbollah’s position would not only reduce Iran’s influence but could also severely limit its ability to maintain a foothold in the Mediterranean.

READ: Spain calls for Israel arms export ban

Iran’s 1 October missile strike was an unmistakable message to Israel that it still possesses significant military capabilities, despite the setbacks to its allies. By employing hypersonic missiles, Iran sought to demonstrate that it could bypass Israel’s advanced air defence systems, challenging the technological superiority that has long been a cornerstone of Israel’s security doctrine. This attack represents more than a retaliatory strike; it signals a recalibration of Tehran’s military strategy in an increasingly volatile region.

Yet Israel’s dilemma is twofold. On the one hand, failing to respond robustly to Iran’s attack risks undermining its deterrence and emboldening adversaries across the “Axis of Resistance”. Israel’s strategic credibility is deeply tied to its ability to swiftly and decisively neutralise threats from Hezbollah, Hamas and other Iran-backed forces. However, an overly aggressive response could provoke a regional conflagration involving Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iranian militias in Syria and Iraq, and potentially even actors in Yemen and Gaza.

Such an escalation would not only erode Israel’s military capabilities but also have dire economic and diplomatic consequences. The broader geopolitical landscape further complicates Israel’s decision-making. The US, Israel’s primary ally, is heading into a critical election year. A full-scale war in the Middle East would likely trigger a global economic downturn, driving up oil prices and exacerbating inflation. A scenario like this would be politically disastrous for the US Democratic Party, which is already facing significant domestic challenges. As a result, the US is likely to pressure Israel to avoid a large-scale conflict until after the election, seeking instead to maintain a fragile balance of deterrence.

Simultaneously, the Ukraine war adds another layer of complexity. A regional war in the Middle East could serve Russia’s interests by diverting global attention and resources away from Ukraine. With the West preoccupied with a new conflict in the Middle East, Russia could exploit the distraction to consolidate its gains in Ukraine, weakening Western efforts to counter Russia. In this context, a full-scale war in the Middle East could shift the global geopolitical focus, providing Russia with the strategic breathing space it needs. However, it seems that Russia does not consider such a situation beneficial for its advance in Ukraine, as there are unconfirmed reports that Moscow has provided Tehran with Sukhoi-35 fighter jets and S-400 air defence systems, which adds another factor for Israel to consider before acting against Iran.

Given these dynamics, Israel’s next steps must be carefully calibrated. While a targeted security response—such as the assassination of additional high-level Iranian figures— could satisfy the Israeli need, such actions are unlikely to restore long-term deterrence. Iran, for its part, is unlikely to back down easily, as too much is at stake for Tehran. A weakened Hezbollah and reduced Iranian influence in Lebanon would mark a significant setback for the Islamic Republic, jeopardising its regional ambitions and weakening its deterrence and national security against both Israel and the US.

The path forward for Israel is fraught with risks. A measured response may prevent immediate escalation, but it could fail to address the underlying strategic challenges posed by Iran’s growing missile capabilities and Hezbollah’s entrenched position in Lebanon. Conversely, an aggressive military campaign could entangle Israel in a protracted conflict that it may not be able to sustain politically or economically.

Ultimately, Israel’s challenge is to navigate between these extremes—reasserting its deterrence without provoking a regional war that could destabilise the entire Middle East. Given the interconnected nature of the region’s conflicts, from Lebanon to Syria and beyond, Israel’s actions will have ripple effects far beyond its borders. As it faces down a resurgent Iran, Israel must evaluate not only the immediate military considerations but also the long-term strategic consequences of its response. In doing so, it must carefully balance the imperatives of security, diplomacy and regional stability, all while navigating the unpredictable global context shaped by the US election and the ongoing war in Ukraine.

The stakes have never been higher, and the decisions Israel makes in the coming weeks will reverberate across the region and the world.

WATCH: Israeli soldier: Gaza and Lebanon are our lands

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.