The real reason why Iran has not retaliated against Israel

Iran has kept the world on edge since it vowed to strike Israel more than two weeks ago — a move experts say could throw the region into a total war.

The Islamic republic’s promised attack is meant in retaliation for the July 31 killing in Tehran of Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of the US and EU-designated Palestinian terror group Hamas.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said after the assassination that Iran was “obliged” to avenge its “guest”.

An Iranian attack has been “imminent” for the past two weeks, and the anticipation has led to frequent bouts of hysteria on social media predicting an attack by Iran and its allies — including the Lebanese militant group Hizballah — within hours .

“I think they really like that: to watch Israel stuck in this waiting period, paying a high economic and psychological price,” said Raz Zimmt, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

But the result of anticipation is a double-edged sword that also hurts Iran and its allies.

“The negative impact on Israel, whether it’s the stress on the domestic front, the military mobilization and even the economic consequences, will not be limited to Israel, but will also affect Iran and Lebanon,” warned Michael Horowitz, the head of intelligence services. at Le Beck International Consultancy based in Bahrain.

Why The Wait?

Analysts said the idea of ​​Iran delaying retaliation because it enjoys the psychological impact is more of an excuse than a proper strategy.

They agreed that intense domestic debates, the complexity of coordinating with proxies and assessing the risks associated with an attack all contributed to Iran’s hesitation.

Zimmt said Iran “faces a major dilemma” because while Khamenei and the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) want to restore Iran’s deterrence against Israel, there are elements in Iran who fear an attack on large scale could pull Iran. into a war with Israel and perhaps even the United States.

Even if a decision has been made on how to respond to Haniyeh’s killing, coordination with Hezbollah and other members of the so-called resistance axis — Tehran’s loosely knit network of regional state and non-state allies and proxies — is a drain of time. process.

Another factor that may affect Iran’s decision-making process is the United States reinforcements its military presence in the region more than it did in April, before Iran’s unprecedented drone and missile attack against Israel.

“We’re seeing a bigger response (from the United States) than in April, which is probably meant to match the scale of the threat, because Iran can mount a bigger response than in April,” Horowitz said.

“The message (from the United States) in sending both defensive assets — as well as potentially offensive ones — is one of deterrence, and perhaps the only kind of message that really matters at this stage.”

Can diplomacy prevail?

Tehran has rejected calls on Western nations to show restraint, insisting it has a legitimate right to respond to Israel’s killing of Haniyeh on Iranian soil.

However, the flurry of phone calls to new President Masud Pezeshkian and Acting Foreign Minister Ali Baqeri-Kani fueled speculation that attempts at diplomacy had helped delay an attack and could prevent it.

“I’m skeptical that diplomacy alone is enough to really change the Iranian calculus,” Horowitz said. “Iran will do what it deems to be in its best interest, regardless of calls and statements urging restraint.”

But Iran did suggested another kind of diplomacy might persuade him at least to “delay” the promised attack: a permanent ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas.

Farzan Sabet, a senior research associate at the Geneva Graduate Institute, speculated that Iran “could be looking for exit ramps” to justify a toned down response, and some sort of ceasefire in Gaza might just be ” the diplomatic victory’ he needs to do that.

Zimmt said the Gaza ceasefire may not be important to Iran, but it gives Tehran “an excuse or an explanation to legitimize this delay, both domestically and especially externally.”

He said a ceasefire could lead Iran to either scale back its attack or choose a different method of retaliation that does not involve a direct strike on Israel.

There are no good options

It remains a mystery when and how Iran will react, but as things stand, Tehran does not appear to have good options.

“Tehran’s decision-makers may have wavered on finding a ‘Gold Bloc’ option,” Sabet said.

This, he explained, is Iran’s dilemma of launching “a retaliatory strike that is not so weak as to have little symbolic or deterrent value, but not so strong as to cause an uncontrolled cycle of escalation leading to a wider war”.

Tehran is effectively left with either a weak response or one that borders on war.

Both options “pose significant risks,” Horowitz said, “either to Iran’s regional projection power or to the risks Iran could take if it steps over the line and is hit back in return.”

Via RFE/RL

More top reads from Oilprice.com