Last week, 29 Iranian soldiers were wounded in a terrorist attack on an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps military parade in the southwestern city of Ahvaz. Both Islamic State (IS) and a local separatist group claimed responsibility, but Tehran retaliated only against the former—launching long-range missiles from its own territory at IS positions in Syria. Ron Ben-Yishai argues that more is at stake here for the Islamic Republic than maintaining deterrence:

Iran . . . blamed Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States [for] the attack in Ahvaz. . . . It is . . . likely that by launching the long-range missiles the Revolutionary Guard . . . meant to send a threatening message to the West. Western countries—the United States, the European Union, and of course Israel—have demanded that Iran stop developing or using long-range ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear warheads. This is one of the main points of contention between Iran and the United States.

Therefore, Iran’s latest actions are a defiant move against the United States, whose special forces are fighting IS in the same region struck by Tehran’s missiles. By targeting Syria, Iran also sent a message to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other Arab countries in the Persian Gulf—namely, that Iran is capable of launching missiles and causing harm even from its sovereign territory.

Tamir Hayman analyzes the latest reports about an offer by Hamas to release three female soldiers in exchange for 150 captured terrorists, of whom 90 have received life sentences; then, if that exchange happens successfully, a second stage of the deal will begin.

If this does happen, Israel will release all the serious prisoners who had been sentenced to life and who are associated with Hamas, which will leave Israel without any bargaining chips for the second stage. In practice, Israel will release everyone who is important to Hamas without getting back all the hostages. In this situation, it’s evident that Israel will approach the second stage of the negotiations in the most unfavorable way possible. Hamas will achieve all its demands in the first stage, except for a commitment from Israel to end the war completely.

How does this relate to the fighting in Rafah? Hayman explains:

In the absence of an agreement or compromise by Hamas, it is detrimental for Israel to continue the static situation we were in. It is positive that new energy has entered the campaign. . . . The [capture of the] border of the Gaza Strip and the Rafah crossing are extremely important achievements, while the ongoing dismantling of the battalions is of secondary importance.

That being said, Hayman is critical of the approach to negotiations taken so far:

Gradual hostage trades don’t work. We must adopt a different concept of a single deal in which Israel offers a complete cessation of the war in exchange for all the hostages.