Israel and Iran have stopped shooting, but have moved closer to all-out war.

This round of fighting between Israel and Iran might be over, but the rules have changed and things are getting more dangerous.

“One thing is clear: last night Israel and Iran came closer than ever to the brink of direct war,” wrote Danny Citrinowicz. researcher at the Israel Institute for National Security Studies.

Considering that they have exchanged ballistic missile fire for the past month, the tone of the Israel-Iran deal may now seem quite strange, but it is for temporary tactical reasons.

Both have expressed a mutual interest in stopping further escalation, but prevailing conditions could mean that further clashes are likely, if not inevitable.

Before Israel launched its attacks – reportedly against missile manufacturing and launching sites in three provinces – Iran had been hinting that it would consider anything other than an attack on its oil or nuclear facilities not worthy of retaliation.

It gave the Islamic Republic a path to save face and prevent further attacks, and it appears to be taking it for now.

“Which indicates two things: one is that the attacks were not as severe as some might have feared, and two, that whatever the extent of the attacks, they feel they can withstand it,” Iranian analyst Negar Mortazavi told the BBC. .

Israel also says it’s all over.

To be sure, its attacks caused more damage than Iran admits, just as Iran probably caused greater damage to Israeli military and intelligence sites in its October 1 missile bombardment than Israel admitted at the time.

Charging…

By heeding US requests not to attack oil or nuclear sites, Israel appears to have chosen to avoid an attack that triggered an Iranian response.

However, the new status quo is that provocations must now be met with retaliatory missile strikes, a very dangerous shift toward large, overt strikes that contrasts with the “shadow war” that prevailed between Israel and Iran before Israel will attack. Iranian diplomatic complex in Syria in April.

Israel’s continued offensives in Gaza and Lebanon, the latest of which, against the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, is eroding years of Iranian investment and effort, mean that Israel and Iran are still at war.

“A new exchange of fire between Israel and Iran will be only a matter of time and the next round will probably be more ferocious than the previous one, just as this round was greater than the April exchange,” wrote author Trita Parsi, the former president of the National Iranian American Council.

“In fact, another red line was crossed in this Israeli attack, reducing the cost of crossing it in the future. Therefore, while we may see some tactical de-escalation, the trajectory remains one of escalation.”

The irony and tragedy of what has happened, in Lebanon in particular, and with Iran, has been the consequence of “escalation to reduce tension.”

Both Israel and Iran felt they needed to increase deterrence against each other: Israel, over Iran’s backing of Hezbollah’s rocket campaign in northern Israel, attacks by Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Shiite militias in Iraq; and Iran, over Israel’s assassination of its military commanders across the region and its alleged assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh while he was visiting Tehran.

Charging…

With each round, the lines get closer and closer to a major confrontation and each side’s tolerance for risk increases.

Iran had offered a way out of the cycle, suggesting in August that it would consider a ceasefire in Gaza as a reason to step back, the same incentive Hezbollah offered to stop its attacks.

But Israel has repeatedly tried to separate its invasion of Gaza from its other conflicts.

The United States, while recognizing that ending the fighting in Gaza is the key to calming the region, could not press its ally to do so and now, in fact, appears to be trying to capitalize on Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah leaders to instigate political change in Lebanon.

“Now, the Biden administration no longer wants an immediate ceasefire; for the moment, unequivocally supports “Israeli efforts to weaken Hezbollah,” wrote Sam Heller, a fellow at the Century Foundation.

“Trying to remake Lebanon’s political system by force is effectively an attempt at regime change – with all the justifiably negative implications – even if American officials reject that characterization“.

Iran will view Hezbollah’s loss of political power in Lebanon and the elimination of its long-range, guided missile threat against Israel – something that took four decades to build – as a major strategic threat.

It means that a large-scale regional war remains dangerously possible, and that each round of attacks makes it more likely.

What has not changed is that ending the fighting in Lebanon, and especially in Gaza, remains the key to avoiding it.