At first, Iran said the time and the way the attack would be responded would be specified by Iran. The timing however is enforced by Netanyahu, at the time pressure on Israel is growing in the US. At least the response should not be enforced by Netanyahu.
UPDATE 1:
This is game theory. Netanyahu thought Iran would have two options. If it doesn’t respond fiercely that will be a sign of weakness. If it responds, all of Israel’s problems will be solved and all pressure will be unloaded from Israel. Both options are bad for Iran and both are good for Israel.
This is how Iran can view the game. If it responds militarily it will be a disaster. The other option is that not attacking militarily is not viewed as a weakness rather it will be a sign of strategic planning.
UPDATE 2:
There are different forces at play: pressure from Israel, pressure from Iran’s government supporters and the potential pressure from social unrest if Iran attacks. The gesture that the morality police should do more to control people is an attempt to stop the last element. However, the solution is to diverge the first and second elements. Iran should let the global community block Israel and at the same time, it should show its influence over its supporters and move them away from the same direction as the first element.
UPDATE 3:
If war expands to Iran, the US election will be affected enormously. It’s easy to predict that pro-peace communities will gain more influence.
There is also another element in play. The free world thinks Iran cannot do anything with element A. Iran on the other hand thinks the free world will control Israel to protect element A. Both are wrong. In fact, if the conflict escalates, element A’s influence will be multiplied, wherever that element may be, dead or alive.