BEIRUT- Netanyahu and his cabinet appear to be riding a wave of high confidence following their intensified bombardment of Lebanon. They operate under the assumption that relentless strikes can dismantle the Islamic resistance in Lebanon before it can effectively respond and stabilize internally. This strategy has bolstered Netanyahu’s popularity within the entity, including among opposition members.

However, if Netanyahu believed that mass destruction in Gaza and Lebanon along with targeted assassinations, that are deemed tactical victories, could reverse the entity's failures in Gaza, the Iranian missile has come and taken it back to square one.

This retaliation by Iran sends a clear message; that is Iran will not allow the Israeli occupation entity to gain the upper hand in deterrence. When the Axis of Resistance faces significant hits and intervention become necessary Iran responds. Moreover, Iran has a score to settle following the assassination of its officials and the attack on its sovereignty, particularly the killing of Gaza’s resistance leader Haniyeh in Tehran.

The delay in Iran's response to this assassination, marked by initial silence, has caught both American and Israeli intelligence off guard. They had misjudged Iran's willingness to react to the transgression. Now that deterrence has been restored tangibly.

Political considerations have diminished in significance, as the Israeli occupation entity has crossed critical red lines. Meanwhile, the U.S. has effectively granted the entity a green light to act with impunity, particularly in the election atmosphere in the country when decisive action is less likely.

One of America’s biggest miscalculations was to believe it can persuade Iran to hold back on retaliating against Haniyeh’s killing, in hopes of achieving a ceasefire. In reality, this approach allowed the entity to escalate its actions, leading to further attacks and targeting Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Nasrallah. Iran, however, did not fall for this trap and has retained the right to respond.

The scale of the impact on the entity has been significant, with many of its military bases—particularly Nevatim, Hatzerim, Tel Nof, Netzarim, and Glilot—suffering direct hits. This creates a strategic crisis for Israel, effectively reducing its previous “successes” to ground zero.

This retaliation may compel Western powers, who ideally want to avoid a regional war, to pressure the entity to halt its aggressive actions. America confirmed in its assessment that the situation has not changed much as Iran did not intend to harm any of the American bases.

While an Israeli response to Iran is anticipated, it is unlikely to be severe enough to provoke a strong Iranian counterattack, unless the U.S. decides to engage directly in the offensive alongside the entity. Should America choose to intervene, its bases in the region could come under threat. However, it is reluctant to take military actions, especially during election time.

If the U.S. opts to participate in the Israeli strikes against Iran, the risk of a regional war looms large. However, if the entity ignores American warnings and escalates its attacks, Iran has made it clear that it will retaliate decisively. While many scenarios remain possible, the likelihood of a regional war appears less likely.