Reuters Analytical Report on Iran's Options for 'Revenge Against Israel'; All Carry Risks

Reuters reported that Iran is facing a dilemma following Israel's attack on its consulate in Syria: how to retaliate without igniting a broader conflict that analysts say Tehran does not want. The attack on Monday, which resulted in the deaths of two Quds Force commanders and five 'military advisors' within the premises of the Islamic Republic's embassy in Damascus, comes as Israel accelerates its long-standing campaign against the Iranian government and its supported armed groups. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has promised revenge. Tehran has several options before it. The country could unleash its proxy forces to attack U.S. forces, use them to directly strike Israel, or expand its nuclear program, which the U.S. and its allies have long sought to contain. U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters that they are closely monitoring whether Iran's proxy forces will attack U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria following the Israeli strike on Monday, as they have in the past. Attacks by Iranian proxies stopped in February after Washington retaliated with dozens of airstrikes against targets in Syria and Iraq linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its supported militias in response to the killing of three American soldiers in Jordan. According to Reuters, U.S. officials stated that they have not yet received information indicating that Iranian-backed groups are seeking to attack American forces following the Monday attack, during which several members of the IRGC, including Mohammad Reza Zahidi, a commander of the Quds Force, were killed. The United States explicitly warned Tehran about attacking its forces during a United Nations Security Council meeting on Tuesday. Robert Wood, the U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the UN, stated, 'We will not hesitate to defend our personnel and reiterate our previous warnings to [the government of] Iran and its proxy forces not to exploit the situation to resume their attacks on American personnel.' Avoiding a Full-Scale War One source closely following the situation, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said that Iran faces the dilemma of wanting to respond to prevent further Israeli attacks while avoiding a full-scale war. This source told Reuters, 'They are faced with the real dilemma that if they respond, they may become embroiled in a confrontation that they clearly do not want. They are trying to calibrate their actions to show that they are responsive but not escalatory.' He noted that Iran might attack Israel, Israeli embassies, or Jewish facilities abroad, adding, 'If they do not respond in this regard, it really signals that their deterrence is a paper tiger.' This U.S. official said, 'Given the significance of the Israeli attack, Iran may have to respond by targeting Israeli interests instead of pursuing U.S. forces.' Elliott Abrams, a Middle East expert at the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, also told Reuters that he believes the [Iranian] government does not want a full-scale war with Israel but could target Israeli interests. Abrams pointed to the Lebanese group Hezbollah, considered Tehran's most powerful military proxy, saying, 'I think Iran does not want a big war between Israel and Hezbollah right now, so there will be no response in the form of a major action by Hezbollah.' He added, 'They have many ways to respond... for example, trying to blow up an Israeli embassy.' According to Reuters, the Iranian government could also respond by accelerating its nuclear program, which Tehran has ramped up since former U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned the 2015 nuclear deal aimed at limiting it in exchange for economic benefits. However, two significant steps—enriching uranium to 90% purity, which is considered bomb-grade, or reviving work on designing a real weapon—could backfire and serve as an invitation for attacks from Israel or the United States. A source closely following the situation told Reuters, 'Israel and the United States view either of these two potential actions as a decision to acquire a bomb. Therefore... they are really taking a big risk. Are they ready to do that? I don't think so.' John Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the CSIS think tank in Washington, said he does not expect a broad response from the [Iranian] government to the attack on its embassy. 'Iran is less interested in teaching Israel a lesson than in showing its allies in the Middle East that it is not weak.' Jason Brodsky: The Islamic Republic is under pressure to respond to the attack on its consulate. Most Arab countries condemned the attack on the Islamic Republic's consulate in Syria. The White House told VOA: We had no knowledge of, nor involvement in, the attack on the Islamic Republic's consulate. The United States warned the Islamic Republic about any attacks on its forces in the region. The Pentagon stated that the U.S. played no role in Israel's attack on the Islamic Republic's interests in Damascus. The U.S. stated that the Iranian Foreign Minister's claims of 'U.S. involvement' in the attack on the Iranian consulate building are 'absurd.' Reactions to the attack on the Islamic Republic's consulate; one user commented: The government hits in Iran's parks and gets hit in the streets of Damascus. Barbara Slavin: The attack on Damascus was one of Israel's boldest attacks against the Islamic Republic's targets. The deadly attack on the Islamic Republic's consulate; Guterres: 'All parties' must respect international laws. VOA's discussion with experts regarding the attack on the Islamic Republic's consulate; it was a clear message from Israel. The deadly attack on the Islamic Republic's consulate; the European Union called for 'restraint.' Galant: The cost of threatening Israel is heavy. The Security Council will convene at Russia's request; the Islamic Republic says it has made 'appropriate decisions' to respond to the attack. Axios quoted a U.S. official: The United States had 'no involvement' in the attack [by Israel] on the Iranian consulate.