MADRID - Iran's response to the Israeli aggression against its consulate, framed within international law and legitimate self-defense, has underscored the rationality of the Islamic Republic as a regional political actor.

The primary objective of the Iranian response, as mentioned in another article, was to restore the well-known balance of deterrence, while simultaneously avoiding triggering a full-scale war in the region.

Operation "True Promise" managed to achieve these two objectives. On one hand, Iran's use of drones, cruise missiles, and ground-to-ground missiles demonstrated that the action was much more than mere symbolism or a simple show, as suggested by some Western analysts. The Iranian response confirmed that the country possesses the military and technical capabilities necessary to strike Israel.

However, Tehran perceived this operation as a legitimate defense from the international perspective, stating that they would consider the matter closed if Israel did not respond. However, in case of a contrary response, according to the Iranian Armed Forces, "we will respond with even greater force than before," which could imply the use of weapons such as the supersonic missiles that Iran has in its arsenal.

The "True Promise" operation can be analyzed from a strategic standpoint and defined as a "sub-threshold" response strategy, a type of response that lies on the line between deterrence and escalation. The meticulously choreographed attack, down to the smallest detail, aimed to send a series of messages to three key actors:

Firstly, Iran sought to establish a precedent that would alter the situation in the region, indicating to Israel that missiles and drones could reach the Zionist Entity despite the myth of its defensive capability. In this sense, it is important to highlight that the attack calls into question the power of Israel. When analyzing power, it should not only be considered in the traditional sense but also as the capacity for autonomous action. Under this definition, one could argue that the Zionist Entity does not possess autonomous and independent political articulation, as it depends on assistance from various actors such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Jordan, among others, to ensure its security.

The next message Iran aimed to convey with the attack was directed at both the United States and the Zionist Entity. This message was related to the self-perception of the Islamic Republic as an inherently anti-imperialist and anti-colonial political entity. Iran's history is marked by national pride and resistance against numerous attempts to change the regime, at least since 1953. The attack on Israel, following threats and warnings from Washington, was a declaration that Iran would not submit to the Western political vision out of fear of a possible response. This act made it clear that if Israel and the United States believed they could threaten Iran, the attack demonstrated that this was not possible.

The final recipients of the Iranian message were the countries in the region that had opted for what is known as "normalization processes" with Israel. From the Iranian perspective, these countries had jeopardized one of the basic principles of regional politics, as understood by the Islamic Republic, especially under President Raisi's government. For Iran, regional issues should be addressed through intra-regional diplomacy, framed within the discourse of good neighborliness and without any foreign interference.

It is important to remember that by not recognizing Israel as a legitimate state and considering it an extension of Western-origin settler colonialism, normalization with Israel represents a risk for the entire region, as demonstrated by the attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus on April 1st.

The "True Promise" operation also served to question the predominant narrative in the West, where the Islamic Republic is represented in terms of irrationality and unpredictable behavior. Since the triumph of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Western media have promoted the narrative that Iran is led by a group of religious fanatics who lack regard for human life, partly attributing this to the tradition of martyrdom in Islam and particularly in Shi'ism.

Accusations of "irrationality" against the Iranian government are closely linked to claims that it seeks to forcibly export its revolution throughout the Muslim world, and that its regional preference is chaos. Within this same discourse lies the narrative of "crazy mullahs" conspiring while working to acquire nuclear weapons that are supposedly intended to dominate the entire region.

All this discourse attempting to associate the Islamic Republic with violence and irrationality was challenged by the way the Iranian response unfolded. In a moment of maximum regional tension, generated by Israel's entirely provocative behavior, Iran has demonstrated restraint and a strategic regional vision that deserve to be highlighted.

Despite all the propaganda in this regard, the Islamic Republic has been a rational actor since its foundation. For example, the Iranian government did not unleash a holy war against Iraq in the 1980s; rather, it fought to defend the Iranian people against a brutal Iraqi invasion, which received direct support from many of Iran's neighbors as well as Western powers, including the United States.

During the course of that war, when Iran was targeted by years of chemical weapons attacks, Imam Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, and his associates chose not to use Iran's alleged stockpiles of chemical agents as weapons, a measure that would have allowed for a similar response. Furthermore, for years, the most prominent political and religious leaders of the Islamic Republic have rejected both the acquisition and the use of nuclear weapons, citing reasons both strategic and religious, as they consider such weapons incompatible with Islamic principles.

The same can be said about the Iranian reaction at present. The response of the Islamic Republic has not been irrational or brutal; rather, it has always remained within the bounds of international law regarding self-defense.

Lastly, it is important to note that due to Israel's destabilizing attitude, the Islamic Republic has abandoned its traditional doctrine of "strategic patience" to adopt "active deterrence." This means that from this moment forward, any action against its military personnel or facilities will receive a direct response.

In this regard, it is important to remember the words of the Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian Revolution Guards, Hossein Salami, who declared in an interview days after the "True Promise" operation: "We have decided to establish a new dynamic with Israel."

The new phase of "active deterrence" does not imply a change in the rationality of the Islamic Republic in its regional political-military vision. What this new phase indicates is that Iran continues to interpret the region in terms of stability but without passively accepting constant Israeli attacks on its sovereignty.