Nomi Bar-Yaacov, an associate fellow in the International Security Programme at Chatham House, said Iran might turn to its proxies to retaliate.

“They have got their people, training, arming, planning everywhere, and they can reach anywhere in the world,” she said. “They can also hit Israeli or Jewish targets globally.”

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said he expects Iran’s response to be another direct hit on Israel.

The strike on Haniyeh “wasn’t just on Iranian territory, it was in Tehran,” he said. “It was at the inauguration. It doesn’t matter who was targeted” and whether or not the target was Iranian.

Iranians, he said, are likely feeling that “if the demonstration of force in April managed to restore deterrence in the short run, that deterrence is now gone” and that they are “going to have do way more than what they did in April in order to be able to restore the balance of power.”

The exchange in April did not spiral because of the diplomatic intervention by the United States and others, and the Iranian strike itself appeared carefully choreographed to cause minimal damage.

Still, Parsi said, there was also “a lot of luck” that went into keeping the escalation limited.

“It’s a pivotal moment in this conflict. I don’t think we’ve been in as difficult a moment in this conflict, given that we’ve seen what Iran is capable of in April,” Bar-Yaacov said.

If the response to the strikes does not cause Israeli casualties, a wider war could still be avoided, Ali said.

But, he added, “We are in the territory of too many ‘ifs’ to avoid a war, and this doesn’t bode well.”