The Iranian government has downplayed the scale and effectiveness of Israel’s attack on its military sites, but hardliners in parliament insisted that the attacks violated Iran’s red lines and required a rapid response, preferably at a time when Israel was already in Lebanon and is entangled in the Gaza Strip.

The internal Iranian debate over how to respond to the long-awaited Israeli attack revolves around the question of whether Israel’s violation of Iran’s national sovereignty should be considered too serious to be ignored or whether the Council should instead from the region and the US should recognize this, prevent the relatively limited nature of the attack and move back from the brink by refraining from retaliation.

In making its decision, Iran’s political elite must weigh competing political, diplomatic and military constraints. But the government’s initial tone was one of patriotic pride in the air defense’s performance rather than calls for immediate retaliation. Some even claimed that the air defense was better than Israel’s Iron Dome.

In a farewell statement of sorts, the State Department condemned the attack, adding: “Iran feels entitled and obligated to defend itself against foreign acts of aggression.”

Iranian government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani said that “limited damage was caused” and that Iranians’ pride had been boosted by their response to the attacks.

But an internal political debate has already begun over how to respond, likely to reflect differences within the political elite that have been evident since Iran surprisingly elected reformist Masoud Pezeshkian as president, in part with the aim of improving relations to improve to the West.

Amir-Hossein Sabeti, the ultra-conservative MP for Tehran, said on Iran’s red line and the invasion of the country’s territory will be responded to at a level that will surprise them.

“The best time to respond is when they are engaged in a war of attrition in Gaza and Beirut.”

There have been calls on social media for Operation Promise 3, a reference to the codename given to Iran’s first two attacks on Israel.

In contrast, former Tehran university professor Sadegh Zibakalam said: “Israel’s early morning airstrike on Iran was more than a military achievement for Tel Aviv, it was a diplomatic success for Washington, which was able to force Netanyahu to strictly limit the attack.” must take retaliatory measures. The Americans have shown for the umpteenth time that they want a war with Iran.”

Many derided Israel’s attack as weak after threats to attack Iran’s oil and nuclear sites the previous week. Ebrahim Rezaei, a member of Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, wrote in the first minutes after the attack on seen.” unusual. The Zionist enemy is like loose change, he just makes noise but has no value or effect. They are too weak to cause serious damage to Greater Iran.”

Hesamoddin Ashena, an adviser to former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, wrote: “They played with the lion’s tail. This is not Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq or Afghanistan. This is Iran.”

Some of Iran’s major military and political players have yet to comment.

Diplomatically, Iran’s foreign ministry will also listen to advice from the region, particularly Saudi Arabia, with which it is trying to rebuild relations.

Iran will welcome messages of solidarity from across the Gulf region, including Oman, Riyadh, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. This is a sign that the country’s recent diplomatic push in the region has paid off. Such public expressions of solidarity between Iran and its Arab neighbors are not a sure-fire success.

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi reflected the general sentiment, saying: “We are very concerned about the blatant violation of the aggression against Iran this morning.” Fortunately, the damage appears to be limited and we very much hope that there is none there are injured people.

“It is time for the world to wake up to the urgent need to address the root causes of this crisis, particularly Israel’s illegal and brutal occupation of Palestinian territories.”

The Jordanian army stressed that it had not allowed Israel to use its airspace. However, some of this Arab support may depend on Iran not escalating the crisis. What was striking was that neither Saudi Arabia nor the UAE mentioned Israel by name in their condemnatory statements.

The hardliners in Tehran, in turn, will ask themselves what this show of regional solidarity means in practice and whether Iran’s best path to security, as they have always stressed, remains the restoration of the battered “Axis of Resistance.”

On the military side, daybreak allowed Iran and open source experts to survey the extent of the damage, including the deaths of two Iranian army soldiers, even as the government ordered Iranians not to upload images.

The fact that Tehran returned to normality within hours, schools opened, traffic jams reappeared and the stock market rose raises the bar for those calling for military retaliation.

Military analysts appear to believe that Iran’s air defense has exceeded expectations. Shahabeddin Tabatabaei, a reform-minded member of the Iranian government’s Information Council, wrote in his report on X: “The attack by the false regime was repelled by the country’s integrated air defense system.”

But Iran knows that another attack on Israel will result in recently installed U.S. defenses being attacked, and there is no guarantee that America would sit out another Israeli response to an Iranian attack, which is likely to expose the world to a direct one Iran-US conflict would bring closer the penultimate step on the escalation ladder before an all-out regional war.

Furthermore, from the Iranian perspective, the chain of responsibility began with an Israeli bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus on April 1, which killed nine officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iran responded on April 13 with Operation True Promise 1, a high-profile attack using drones and missiles.

Israel responded on April 18 with limited airstrikes on an air defense radar near a nuclear site in Iran.

Subsequently, Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in Tehran on July 31, and Iran-backed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was killed in Beirut on September 27, along with IRGC deputy chief of operations Abbas Nilforoushan.

This led to Iran’s response on October 1, dubbed Operation True Promise 2, in which 200 ballistic missiles were fired at Israel. In this way, Iran feels justified in responding and restoring deterrence.

Pezeshkian felt personally hurt when the government decided in August not to respond militarily after Haniyeh’s assassination because the US had indirectly assured that peace talks in Gaza were two weeks away from a breakthrough. Subsequently, the US was unable to provide Israel’s support for the ceasefire.

Therefore, further Western promises that diplomats are on the verge of a breakthrough, be it in Lebanon or the Gaza Strip, are viewed with skepticism in Tehran.

Gaza ceasefire talks are due to resume on Sunday and there are some signs that the Israeli army may want a break in Lebanon. In this context, if Iran actually decided to stop engaging with Israel on this third and most dangerous front, no one would be happier than the White House. Some confidence in his ability to de-escalate events would be restored. But at this point, such a pre-election Hail Mary seems unlikely.