A note from Saman Keyvanpour.

It should always be borne in mind that the Islamic Republic has been operating in an organized manner based on Russia’s strategic policies for years. Although it seems that the strategic depth of the Islamic Republic is derived from the revolutionary defense of this ideological government, the tolerance of excessive pressures of sanctions and economic hardships, and the mismatch of these costs and political erosion with the interests of the Islamic Republic government, or to amend this disparity against calculated strategies for opening the foot of Israel to a serious military crisis, have enough contradictions to prove that the Islamic Republic is only acting in the direction of securing Russian interests by using a leverage to pressure and at least pushing back America in the region, and practically has no autonomy.

On the other hand, the need to empty missile and drone silos due to the danger of helium fuel tank explosions and the decay of rubber parts showcased a widespread attack using depleted equipment to force Israel into a serious response.

Israel’s withdrawal from defense and the expansion of the scope of engagements beyond Israel’s borders, in response to drone attacks and non-nuclear ones, all indicate a combined strategy to lure Israel into a larger trap and turn international opinion against it.

The presentation of a self-sacrificing front by Russian leaders is another form of deception for Israel, signaling freedom of action in confrontation with the Revolutionary Guards, which Israeli leaders must always bear in mind.

Moreover, these movements come at a time when both Russians needed a diversion after the October 7th attack by Hamas and had to achieve a significant portion of their strategic goals in the region before the U.S. presidential elections.

The weakness and inaction of the U.S. and NATO in confronting Russia (from the Ukraine front to engagement with China and the Arabs, charging terrorism, and the advance of the Revolutionary Guards) have given Russians the opportunity to think more boldly about their messianic ambitions.

In such circumstances, Israeli leaders must think of the most intelligent response while maintaining the right to serious and reciprocal action against the leaders of the Islamic Republic and the Revolutionary Guards.

A proxy attack requires a proxy response.