Editor's note: On Sunday, Iran launched an unprecedented strike on Israeli territory, escalating long-standing tensions between the two countries. At a time when many are concerned it could blow up into a full-scale regional conflict, three experts share their views with China Daily's Liu Jianna. Excerpts follow:

Israel could give a proportional response

Ongoing tensions between Israel and Iran have reached a critical juncture, but both countries have sent clear messages they want to avoid further escalation and larger conflicts. While Israel has expressed its intention to retaliate, its stance suggests a proportional response, emphasizing equivalence and deterrence. Any retaliation must match Iran in military targets chosen and scale of attack. However, to serve both as a counterstrike and a deterrent, it would need to exceed Iran's intensity.

The future remains uncertain, with the possibility of the region getting entrenched in a cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation. If Israel's retaliation results in significant Iranian casualties, Iran may be compelled to retaliate again, leading to an escalation spiral. Nonetheless, Israel's retaliation is inevitable and must be commensurate with Iran's actions.

Under pressure from the United States and amid the ongoing Gaza crisis, the chances of a full-scale regional war seem minimal at the moment. The US has exerted significant pressure on Israel, with US President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Llyod Austin, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken contacting Israeli leaders simultaneously, expressing condemnation and support while subtly urging restraint. The implicit message to Israel is clear: the matter should not escalate further. The US does not support large-scale retaliation or preemptive attacks against Iran, fearing a significant escalation of the situation. Thus, while diplomatic efforts have been extensive, they are primarily aimed at reassuring Israel and discouraging aggressive actions.

The crisis underscores the US' longstanding strategic goal of disengaging from the Middle East and redirecting its focus on major power competition, particularly against China and Russia. However, Iran and Israel pose significant challenges to this strategy. Iran's nuclear plans and Israel's resistance to US engagement with Iran create conflicting interests. US President Biden faces the challenging task of supporting Israel while restraining it from overzealous actions under the leadership of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In the regional context, most countries in the Middle East adopt a cautious approach, emphasizing support for Palestine while advocating for peaceful conflict resolution through political dialogue. They oppose further escalation, fearing its adverse impact on regional stability and development. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE maintain a balanced stance, being wary of getting dragged into a direct confrontation with Israel. They advocate for peace, development and reform, refusing to allow regional conflicts to derail their strategic goals.

Iran's response to the conflict has been limited and precise, signaling a reluctance to escalate tensions further. Its retaliation targeted military objectives directly related to the recent attack of Iranian targets in Syria, avoiding civilian casualties and major cities. This calculated approach aims at safeguarding Iran's reputation and preventing direct regional conflicts with Israel and the US.

All in all, while the situation remains fluid and uncertain, all parties involved must exercise restraint and seek diplomatic solutions to prevent further escalation. The crisis highlights the complex dynamics of regional politics and the delicate balance of power in the Middle East. It serves as a reminder of the importance of dialogue, cooperation and conflict resolution to ensure peace and stability in the region.

Tang Zhichao, a researcher of Middle East studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Unprecedented strikes call for urgent diplomacy

This strike was not unprovoked; it came in direct response to Israel bombing the Iranian embassy in Syria, an act that resulted in the deaths of two Iranian generals.

The escalation comes at a time when Israel finds itself increasingly isolated and defensive amid the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. It appears that Israel aimed at diverting international scrutiny from Gaza and its domestic issues by targeting Iran, a tactic that has only served to heighten tensions. Iran, left with little choice, had to respond. Failing to do so would have been perceived as a sign of weakness, potentially stirring unrest among its populace. This was amply indicated as Iranians took to the streets, rallying in support of the strike, signaling a strong domestic approval of their government's actions.

This time, however, the dynamics were different. The international community has largely criticized Israel's aggressive maneuvers, providing Iran with a moment to align with global opinion against Israel. Yet, Iran was careful to avoid dragging the conflict into an uncontrollable escalation. Its calibrated response was strategic: while it showcased Iran's military capability, it also demonstrated restraint by informing the United States in advance, thus allowing Israel to prepare and avoid significant casualties.

The conflict underscores a crucial point about military engagement in today's interconnected world. The majority of Iran's missiles were intercepted, showcasing Israel's robust defense capabilities. However, Iran's deployment of advanced hypersonic missiles, which targeted a military base rather than civilian areas, was a clear demonstration of its precision and technological advancement. This was a calculated move to signal Iran's capability while avoiding unnecessary escalation.

Both countries have seemingly achieved their immediate objectives. Following the strike, US President Joe Biden reached out to Israel, urging restraint, which indicates a mutual interest in preventing further retaliation. Iran, through its statements at the United Nations, has made it clear that it stands ready to escalate if provoked again. However, this too seems more of a warning than a promise of inevitable conflict.

As it stands, the incident might look contained, but it is far from a resolution. The ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict continues to fuel these regional fires. Iran's continued support for Palestine and international pressure on Israel are likely to persist, pressing for a significant shift in policy and approach by both the Israeli and US leaderships to address the root causes of the conflict.

In the broader context, most nations, particularly those in the Middle East, oppose an escalation of tension. Countries like Turkiey and various Arab states have openly called for restraint, understanding that a wider conflict would be detrimental to the entire region. Thus, the incident, while severe, is also a critical juncture for international diplomacy. It emphasizes the urgent need for a dialogue-focused approach to address not just the symptoms but the underlying issues plaguing the Middle East. Moving forward, the international community must harness this moment of heightened attention to advocate for peace and stability in the region.

Li Weijian, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Studies, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies

Domestic politics at play for each nation

The recent conflict between Israel and Iran has captured global attention, with both countries engaging in strategic moves amid escalating tensions. Initially, Israel's strike on Iran's consulate in Syria sparked outrage, leading to speculation about its motives and repercussions. It's evident that Israel, facing mounting pressure from the international community over its actions in Palestine, sought to change the narrative by targeting Iran.

Moreover, Israel sought to test the limits of US support, given the Biden administration's cautious stance on its military operations. With domestic concerns in the US regarding its unwavering support for Israel, the Biden administration faces a delicate balancing act. Israel's actions risked exacerbating tensions with Iran and potentially drawing the US into the conflict, a scenario the Biden administration sought to avoid.

Iran, on the other hand, faced a dilemma. While compelled to retaliate against Israel's aggression, it was wary of escalating the conflict into a full-scale war. Despite the pressure to respond, Iran's retaliation was calculated and limited, reflecting its desire to avoid further escalation.

The recent conflict underscores the complex dynamics at play in the region, with Israel and Iran testing each other's resolve while navigating the broader geopolitical landscape. The limited nature of the conflict suggests a desire on both sides to avoid a full-blown confrontation, at least for now. However, the long-term implications for regional peace and stability remain uncertain.

Moving forward, it is essential for all stakeholders to prioritize dialogue and diplomacy to address underlying grievances and prevent future conflicts. The international community, particularly the US, must play a constructive role in facilitating negotiations and de-escalating tensions in the region. Failure to do so risks further destabilization and the potential for a broader conflict with far-reaching consequences.

Huang Minxing, a professor at the Institute of Middle Eastern Studies, Northwest University

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.