When Iran launched missiles and drones at Israel on Sunday and Monday in response to Israeli attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon, the immediate military impact appeared limited. However, its political importance could be much greater.

For years, Iran has justified direct attacks against Israel as retaliation for actions against Iranian territory, commanders or interests. This time it was different. Tehran acted after an attack against one of its allies, after an Israeli bombing against a building allegedly linked to Hezbollah in the south of Beirut.

On Monday, the Iranian military declared that it would stop attacks on Israel, but the very decision to attack raises an important question: Why did Iranian leaders feel the time was right to take that step, even knowing that they risked provoking new Israeli military action and jeopardizing fragile peace negotiations with the United States?

Part of the answer could lie in how Iranian leaders assess their position after months of conflict.

The Islamic Republic emerged from the war weakened in some ways, but also with a stronger sense of its own resilience.

Despite intense military pressure from Israel and the United States, economic sanctions, and the American naval blockade, the Republic remained standing. The government remains in power, its security apparatus remains intact and no mass uprising materialized, despite repeated predictions from its opponents.

That experience may have modified Tehran's calculations.

Instead of seeing itself as a vulnerable actor seeking to avoid confrontation at all costs, Iran can now increasingly be seen as a power that has weathered the worst and can afford to impose new red lines.

Deterrence strategy?

The attack against Israel could therefore have had less of a retaliatory objective than of deterrence. Tehran could be signaling that attacks against its regional allies will no longer be considered separate from attacks against Iran itself.

That message would have special relevance for Hezbollah, Iraqi militias and other members of Iran's regional network, known as the Axis of Resistance. The credibility of Iranian influence has always depended in part on the belief that it will stand by its allies. Failure to respond after publicly warning Israel could have damaged that credibility.

From this perspective, the attack was not directed solely against Israel. It also took aim at US and Israeli allies across the region, who were watching closely to see whether Tehran followed through on its threats.

The chosen moment is equally striking.

US President Donald Trump had recently suggested that a deal could be close. Conventional logic would indicate that Iran should avoid actions that would jeopardize diplomatic channels.

However, Tehran might think otherwise.

Iranian leaders may have concluded that demonstrating strength through limited or calculated military action could strengthen their position at the negotiating table, rather than weaken it.

From Tehran's perspective, showing a willingness to resort to force could serve to remind both Washington and Israel that Iran still has options.

This does not necessarily mean that Iran wants the negotiations to fail. Tehran appears to have acted to set a precedent and send a political message, but without reaching a level that would make escalation inevitable.

It remains to be seen whether that calculation turns out to be correct.

Iranian concern

The reactions of ordinary Iranians to the latest exchange reflect the broader debate.

Iran's actions are seen by some as a justified response.

"For Iran to join the conflict to defend Lebanon is loyal and correct. Since the nuclear deal, Iran has not breached international law, and this attack is in response to the other party violating the ceasefire rules," said a reader of the BBC Persian service.

Others question Tehran's priorities: "For almost two months there has been fighting in southern Iran, but without a serious response. It seems that southern Lebanon is more important than southern Iran."

For many, however, the predominant feeling is concern about the direction the confrontation may take. “Honestly, my heart sank when the war started again,” one Iranian citizen told the BBC Persian service.

Others believe the exchange will not escalate into a full-scale conflict. "This confrontation is not very serious and will not lead to an all-out war like the previous two. Iran knows that the United States no longer wants a direct war, so it takes the initiative. It is partly staging and propaganda, so that its supporters feel that they are winning."

Another possibility is that the attack reflects growing discontent with the direction of the negotiations. If Iran feels that it is being asked to make concessions without receiving significant benefits in return, this action could serve to increase its room for maneuver before the next phase of talks.

In any case, the attack suggests a leadership that feels more secure than many outside observers expected just a few months ago.

The key question is not whether Iran was willing to endure another round of Israeli bombing, but whether it now believes it can do so while pursuing diplomatic avenues. If that is the case, Iran could attempt to establish a new regional reality: one in which it negotiates from a position of strength while actively enforcing its own red lines.

Although this approach carries risks, it would represent a significant change in the way the Islamic Republic understands both its security and its role in the Middle East.