Nearly a month after the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, Iran has yet to fulfill its pledge to attack Israel in a retaliatory strike. Israel did not take formal responsibility for his death, but Iran is absolutely certain that Israel assassinated him, an assumption that rings true.
Israel, however, had no hesitation in taking credit for the killing of Fuad Shukr, Hezbollah’s senior military commander. Just hours before targeting Haniyeh, Israel killed Shukr in Beirut.
Promising to exact vengeance, Hezbollah waited until August 25 to make good on its promise. Israel, having learned of its plan to retaliate in the early hours of that day, carried out preemptive air strikes against Hezbollah’s rocket launchers in southern Lebanon, prompting Hezbollah to fire more than 300 rockets and drones at Israeli military sites in northern and central Israel.
Hezbollah’s barrage caused very little damage, since Israel downed almost all of its projectiles. But Hezbollah may well be satisfied that its tit-for-tat exchange with Israel was a sufficient reprisal.
Iran, Hezbollah’s patron and ally, has praised its armed response. Yet Iran, Israel’s deadliest enemy since the 1979 Islamic revolution, still has not struck Israel. It was assumed that Iran might do so on the Jewish holiday Tisha B’Av on August 12-13, but this moment came and went without incident.
Iran may not have carried out its threat until now because it is still unsure whether it can restore deterrence with Israel while simultaneously avoiding a full-scale war. Reports suggest that, while Iran certainly wants to inflict serious damage on Israel, it may be hesitant to cause mass civilian Israeli casualties, an outcome that could surely trigger a regional war and, perhaps, drag in the United States.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has reportedly advised Iran, an ally of Russia, to act with restraint so that civilians in Israel are spared in the event of an Iranian-Israeli exchange.
Iran may also be constrained by several other factors.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation recently declared that Haniyeh’s assassination was a flagrant violation of international law and of Iran’s territorial integrity and national security. Nevertheless, much to Iran’s chagrin, it did not issue a statement in support of an Iranian attack.
Iran’s calculations may be related to Israel’s indirect negotiations with Hamas on reaching a ceasefire/hostage/Palestinian prisoner deal. Iran is counting on an agreement under which Israel would observe a long-range truce and withdraw from the Gaza Strip, thereby leaving Hamas, one of its proxies, in power.
The Institute for the Study of War thinks that Iran will delay an attack until the conclusion of the negotiations.
Realistically, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not agree to these conditions, given his determination to crush Hamas’ military capabilities and to preserve his coalition government, which demands a victory in this drawn-out war.
Certainly, Iran’s intention is to stoke fear and anxiety among Israelis by slowing its response and capitalizing on speculation about when and how it will respond.
On August 11, Defa Press, the outlet of the Iranian armed forces, claimed that Iran is conducting a “flawless psychological war” against Israel by drawing out its retaliation. Defa Press contends that Iran’s psychological war has disrupted Israelis’ daily routines and harmed the Israeli economy.
The Defa Press, on August 5, published a list of potential civilian and military targets in Israel, a move intended to create unease and panic. The list includes Israeli military bases and government sites like the Ministry of Defence in Tel Aviv, the Knesset building in Jerusalem, and eight air bases across Israel. Civil infrastructure sites, such as airports, gas fields and power plants, were also listed.
“Iran’s decision to explicitly name these targets, which are spread throughout Israel, is likely designed to cause the Israel Defence Forces to disperse air- and missile-defence assets across a wide area,” the institute says. “Iran may calculate that by causing Israel to spread out its defences, this will increase the likelihood that Iran can hit some of its targets.
On August 10, a member of the Iranian Parliamentary National Security and Foreign Policy Committee said that “keeping Israel in limbo” was a component of Iran’s “revenge operation” aimed at Israel.
On August 20, five days before Hezbollah’s barrage, the Iranian Permanent Mission to the United Nations suggested that the Axis of Resistance could conduct a ground attack into Israel. “The Iranian UN mission likely published this statement to generate psychological and informational effects, rather than to signal Iran’s serious intention to conduct a ground attack into Israel imminently,” the institute says.
The American factor is a consideration for Iran as well. The United States, Israel’s chief ally, has sent two aircraft carrier groups and a guided-missile submarine to the region to deter Iran, while U.S. Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin has reiterated the United States’ commitment to “defend Israel” if necessary.
John Kirby, U.S. President Joe Biden’s spokesman, said on August 27 that the United States takes Iranian rhetoric seriously. “We believe that they are still postured and poised to launch an attack should they want to do that, which is why we have that enhanced force posture in the region.”
The commander of the U.S. Central Command, General Michael Kurilla, has visited Israel twice in recent weeks to meet the Israeli chief of staff, General Herzi Halevi, and to finalize U.S.-Israeli plans to thwart an Iranian attack.
General Charles Brown, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited Israel a couple of days ago.
Washington has warned Iran that an attack would be counter-productive and could be as militarily ineffective as its first direct strike on Israel this past April. Iran struck Israel directly after the Israeli Air Force bombed Iran’s embassy in Damascus on April 1, resulting in the deaths of three generals in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
On April 13, Iran and its allies in the Axis of Resistance responded, firing around 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 120 ballistic missiles at Israel. Most of these projectiles were intercepted by Israel, the United States, Britain, France and Jordan. A few missiles got through, slightly damaging an an Israeli air base in the Negev and wounding a Bedouin girl.
Shortly afterward, in a limited response, Israel bombed an Iranian Air Force base in Isfahan.
Britain, France and Germany recently released a joint statement warning Iran not to attack Israel. “We are deeply concerned by the heightened tensions in the region, and united in our commitment to de-escalation and regional stability,” the statement said. “We call on Iran and its allies to refrain from attacks that would further escalate regional tensions and jeopardize the opportunity to agree (to) a ceasefire and the release of hostages.”
The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Nasser Kanaani, shot back. “Without any objection to the crimes of the Zionist regime, the E3 statement impudently requires Iran not to respond to a violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Iran is determined to deter Israel and urged Britain, France and Germany to “once and for all stand up against the war in Gaza and the warmongering of Israel.”
According to The Telegraph, a British newspaper, Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, fears an all-out war with Israel and believes that Iran should instead hit Mossad spy bases in the region. The daily adds that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the branch of the armed forces that would lead an attack and that is responsible for securing Iran’s borders, is pushing for a missile attack on military facilities in Tel Aviv and other cities.
General Ali Mohammad Naeini, the spokesman for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, said on August 20 that an Iranian retaliatory strike is not imminent. “Time is on our side, and it’s possible that the wait period for the response could take a long time. It’s possible that Iran’s response will not be a repeat of previous operations. The quality of the response, scenarios and tools are not always the same.”
General Ali Fadavi, the deputy commander in chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, has vowed that Iran will not renege on its pledge to “punish” Israel. “The supreme leader’s orders to severely punish Israel and avenge the blood of Ismail Haniyeh is explicit and direct,” he said on August 9. “This is now Iran’s responsibility and will be carried out in the best form possible.”
The chief of staff of Iran’s forces, General Mohammad Bagheri, said on August 26 that Hezbollah’s recent rocket and drone barrage was part of Iran and its allies’ “revenge” against Israel. Bagheri said that an Iranian military response is “inevitable.” As he put it, “Iran will decide how and when to take revenge. The Axis of Resistance will avenge the blood of Ismail Haniyeh, each member according to their own plan and capacity.”
A few days ago, Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s new foreign minister, said that Iran has no interest in raising regional tensions, but that it will not “deviate from its absolute right to respond to the terrorist act by the Zionist regime.”
Ali Bagheri Kani, the acting foreign minister before Araghchi’s appointment, said on August 7 that Iran “has no choice” but to exercise its right to self-defence and restore deterrence against Israel.
Iranian Deputy Defence Minister, General Hojatollah Qureishi, warned on August 27 that Iran’s response to Israel will be “unpredictable.”
Clearly, there is no way of knowing when the Iranian regime will exercise that “right,” but in all probability, Iran has no intention of backing down and is indeed planning an attack.
Israel is bound to respond to it.