What was Iran thinking? Maybe not what you think.

Deciphering what the Iranian regime’s dramatic weekend air assault on Israel means is not as difficult as most observers are making it. There are really only two possible scenarios: Either the Islamic republic’s aim was not to inflict major damage on Israeli targets, or its aim was but it was incapable of doing so.

Either way, what the drone and missile attacks should clarify is that Iran doesn’t have the means to mount a significant conventional response to Israeli might. And Tehran is painfully aware of this.

No one can deny that the image of hundreds of projectiles launched into the air was an impressive and terrifying sight. The fact that apparently not a single one hit a target of any strategic value, however, is telling. Despite its stated intention of destroying Israel, this was the first military offensive Tehran ever launched against the Jewish state, and it was thwarted with apparent ease. Many reports indicate a high level of information-sharing by Iran itself ahead of the attack, giving the United States, Israel and other allies ample opportunity to prepare for the onslaught. This would suggest that the Iranians did not want to maximize damage to Israeli assets and provoke a larger conflict.

The clear message seems to be that the regime, its bluster notwithstanding, is weak. Iran’s economy is in tatters, and the government has no credible remedies for people’s woes. Protests against the clerical system have grown in recent years.

Less obvious is the regime’s fear of a conflict that bleeds into Iranian territory. A direct, protracted war with Israel is not something Iran is equipped to fight. For context, Iran, a country of nearly 90 million people, spent roughly $7 billion on its military in 2022. Israel, with a population of about 9 million, spent more than $23 billion. As Iran’s currency spirals downward in value (reaching an all-time low after the weekend attack), it’s difficult to envision how the country could ever catch up to Israel’s military capabilities.

Just as critical, though, is the fact that since its devastating eight-year war with Iraq ended in 1988, the Islamic republic has been able to keep the country mostly safe from external military strikes. It’s one of the few arguments the regime can make to the people about its success. Yet suddenly – and ironically, if it wanted to avoid provocation – that promise of continued internal security feels very flimsy.

So why conduct the strikes in the first place?

This was not a simple act of unprovoked aggression. Don’t forget that the air assault was a response to an Israeli strike on an Iranian diplomatic compound in Syria that killed a top commander and several officers of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In recent months, and in fact over several years, Israel has assassinated numerous Iranian military officials and nuclear scientists and generally wreaked havoc on Iranian assets without suffering significant consequences.

Iran’s leaders, shaken by the killing of top military brass, felt they had to respond with a show of strength.