Israel’s recent strike on Iranian military targets has been framed as a limited retaliation, echoing Iran’s restrained response after the bombing of its Damascus embassy. However, such “limited” actions are anything but benign; escalation remains escalation, and the potential for further consequences is ominously present. It’s evident this attack was coordinated with Israel’s key allies, the US and UK, and Iran managed to mitigate its impact by intercepting part of the assault, seemingly giving all sides a face-saving moment.

Still, the real fallout may only reveal itself in the coming days. Iran’s pledge to respond leaves the region—and beyond—waiting to see what that will entail. The dangerous pattern that has emerged in recent years shows Israel’s continued provocations aimed at pushing Iran into a response severe enough to draw the US into outright conflict. This aligns all too closely with Israel’s strategy to work toward its so-called “Greater Israel” vision, one that extends beyond its current borders and involves persistent regional destabilisation.

Pakistan’s official stance, condemning Israel as the aggressor and standing by Iran’s position, should be appreciated. At a time when the region’s dynamics are volatile, Pakistan’s call for de-escalation and balanced diplomacy is prudent and echoes the sentiments of many countries wary of an expanding crisis.

As tensions in the Middle East simmer, restraint from all players is crucial, yet it seems that with every passing incident, both sides edge closer to a broader confrontation. The question remains: how many more “limited” escalations will occur before restraint is abandoned entirely? The stakes are high, and history has shown that unchecked provocations only fuel instability.