Why will Iran’s response be different from what we expect?
Rob Verhoeven & Ale Magni
Following the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on 31 July, just hours after the inauguration of new president Masoud Pezeshkian, the Middle East is bracing for Iran’s potential response. Israel has not yet confirmed or denied any involvement in the incident. However, it appears that the media, as well as international decision-makers, including those in Iran, believe that Israel was behind the assassination of the Hamas leader. It would seem that there is a growing intensity in counter-intelligence and intelligence activities targeting Israel, as reported by the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, among others.
Time is in our favour and the waiting period for this response could be long — the Iran’s Revolutionary Guards spokesperson Alimohammad Naini said, referring to the possibility of retaliation against Israel. According to Iranian state media, Iranian leaders are supposedly analysing various circumstances, which may mean that the Islamic Republic’s response will not be a repeat of previous operations. At least this is how the Saudi Arabian outlet Arab News, among others, reports.
The US has sought to engage the allies with ties to Iran to encourage Tehran to consider de-escalating tensions in the Middle East. This coincides with the visit of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to the region, where he is seeking to encourage progress towards a ceasefire in Gaza.
A spokesman for the Revolutionary Guards said that Tehran supports any move that will bring an end to the Gaza war and help its people. However, he also added: — We do not consider the US actions to be sincere. We believe that the US is a party to the war in Gaza.
There have been some indications in the media and among experts, including Reuters, that Iran is unlikely to take steps that could potentially derail a potential agreement. It has been suggested that a ceasefire in Gaza could help to prevent further escalation.
On the other hand, there is little probability that after the huge insult, that the assassination of the Hamas leader on the day of the inauguration of the new Iranian president undoubtedly was, Tehran would not continue to uphold the Axis of Resistance.
Nevertheless, pro-Iranian media in the region highlight another aspect: just like the Revolutionary Guards spokesman said, they claim that time is working in Tehran’s favour.
This is the argument put forth by the articles published on the website of the Lebanese TV channel Al Mayadeen, which is linked to Iran. They argue that the Israelis are pushing for war, using escalation, including the killing of Haniyeh, but also on the same day of an important Hezbollah commander, Fuad Shukr in Beirut. This is because they believe that — War is a possibility, given the limited choices available. Furthermore, any future war will undoubtedly be fought under much more challenging conditions, as we could read in one of the first analyses of this type, published on 3 August by Ali Jezzini.
According to pro-Iranian experts, this is so firstly because Israel’s national security doctrine presupposes a strategy of absolute deterrence, i.e. such a projection of power in the region that would deter potential aggressors to the greatest extent possible. This is in line with what has been said by the Israeli government in official statements and documents.
Furthermore, from Israel’s perspective, there is a growing strength in the Axis of Resistance forces (the forces of Iran’s allies in the region, including Iraqi Shia militias, Hezbollah, the Houthi movement in Yemen, the Syrian government), which is reducing the technological advantage of Israel. This is exemplified, among other things, by the Houthi attacks on Israel, but also by the recent media display of Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal, or the agreements signed between Tehran and Moscow.
Thirdly, according to Iranian experts, there is a possibility that US support for Israel may not be guaranteed in the future. This is thought to be the result of a combination of domestic factors, as well as the possibility of the country becoming involved in other theatres of warfare, such as East Asia. Furthermore, it could be argued that Israel is becoming increasingly excluded from international politics, as evidenced by the sanctions imposed on settlers and the ongoing debate surrounding the arms embargo on European countries.
In addition, as also indicated by analyses and texts published by, among others, Haaretz and the New York Times, internal divisions, which were already present before 7 October and have been further activated recently in the form of disputes over the agreement with Hamas and the exchange of hostages, are playing an increasingly important role in Israel’s internal politics. Nowadays, calls for mass civil disobedience are present in the pages of Haaretz, and not done by just anyone – the former Prime Minister Ehud Barak is calling for it. The aim of the mobilisation would be to overthrow the far-right government, the question is, what would the reaction be? Anything seems possible, a limited civil war included. It would seem prudent, then, from the Zionist perspective to eliminate those who pose the greatest threat, who will always remain in the shadows of these optics, if we are to ensure our continued survival.
It would be inaccurate to suggest that this is an isolated opinion. Rather, it is a widely held view in Tehran, a perspective that has been reinforced by recent comments from Alimohammad Naini.
Moreover, all indications are that Israel is not in a position, without the support of its allies — as Iran knows — to escalate the current conflict, either in the Lebanese or Iranian direction, if only the two can be separated. Iran’s latest response to Israel’s aggression on the 13th of April this year, even though it was literally announced officially and unofficially, with the number of missiles, their flight path, through the contacts of, among others, Jordanian diplomacy — which is in alliance with the US — with counterparts in Tehran, overstretched Israel’s defence capabilities.
The famous American expert John Mearsheimer, known for his analyses written in the spirit of political realism, but also Poland’s leading Middle East analyst, Wojciech Szewko point out, it is possible that as many as half of the rockets and drones were shot down by US forces, their airfield groups and troops in the region. Importantly, Jordan’s missile defence was also involved in the defence of Israel’s skies. All this to prevent escalation, which was also not Tehran’s goal. The whole operation in April seems to have been intended as a battlefield reconnaissance under controlled conditions.
If this is the case, Israel has objectively found itself in a situation where the only way forward, especially in the optics of the current leadership with potential prison sentences hanging over it, is escalation. Netanyahu’s government, on the other hand, is now strengthened, Joe Biden having been dispatched with a flourish, his efforts to secure a ceasefire, in the guise of Blinken’s constant expeditions, completely ridiculed by the Israeli far right. But what kind of efforts were these if at the same time the US sent Israel 20 billion in arms aid? Well, exactly.
Moreover, radicalised Israeli society, even if it does not support Bibi, supports his actions, including the torture and murder of innocent Palestinians. There are no blameless people here, only those more or less involved.
In contrast, even if there is an escalation in Lebanon, as happened on 24-25 August, Iran will do everything to stop it.
In the words of his ministers, Netanyahu is signalling: we want war. His message is clear: we want allied support, we want escalation with Iran. However, it takes two to tango. Tehran will hold back for now, because it can achieve more in the future.
Subscribe to Cross-border Talks’ YouTube channel! Follow the project’s Facebook and Twitter page! And here are the podcast’s Telegram channel and its Substack newsletter!
Like our work? Donate to Cross-Border Talks or buy us a coffee!
About The Author
