What is behind the delay in Iran’s promised retaliation against Israel?
Nearly a month has passed since Iran vowed to “punish” Israel for the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran.
Haniyeh was killed on July 31 during a visit to the Iranian capital, where he had traveled to attend the inauguration of Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian. His death, followed by Iran’s pledge to avenge him, sparked a wave of speculation and media reports suggesting that an Iranian attack on Israel was imminent. However, no such attack has materialized.
Last week, the spokesman for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said that retaliation against Israel could take a “long” time to be carried out, adding further ambiguity to the situation.
In April, Iran responded to a suspected Israeli strike on its consulate in Damascus, which killed two senior Iranian military commanders among others, in under two weeks. The extended delay this time has raised questions about Tehran’s current strategy.
Analysts point to several factors that could explain Iran’s hesitation. Chief among them is the fear of a powerful Israeli response that could lead to further embarrassment for Iran and potentially escalate into a broader conflict involving the United States. The Iranian leadership, which prioritizes maintaining its grip on power above all else, is likely wary of triggering a situation that could weaken its control.
“Many in Iran, including leading figures in the country’s political class, are warning the leadership about the consequences of an all-out war that could be truly devastating to the country and lethal to the regime,” Arash Azizi, a visiting fellow at Boston University’s Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, told Al Arabiya English.
The recent deployment of additional US military assets closer to Iran also seems to have deterred Tehran. This increased US presence has “gotten into the headspace” of Iran’s leadership, according to the Pentagon.
Iran has previously demonstrated a strong aversion to war with the US. A prime example of this is the aftermath of the US killing of Iran’s Quds Force chief Qassem Soleimani in 2020. Despite Soleimani’s significance, Iran’s response was measured, aimed at avoiding an all-out war with the US.
Another consideration is the ongoing efforts to negotiate a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Iran is unlikely to want to take any action that could be blamed for derailing these talks, as it seeks to avoid being seen as a spoiler in the international community.
Iran is also acutely aware of the upcoming US presidential election in November. The Iranian regime is particularly cautious not to take any steps that could boost the chances of former President Donald Trump, whose administration took a much more aggressive stance toward Iran compared to Joe Biden’s.
“A war with Israel would drag the US into a bigger conflict, which may hurt the chances of Kamala Harris in the November election. The Islamic Republic will do anything to stop Trump from being elected again,” Saeid Golkar, an associate professor of Political Science at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and senior advisor at United Against Nuclear Iran, told Al Arabiya English.
Despite these considerations, Iran may ultimately feel compelled to respond to Israel due to the severe embarrassment of having an ally assassinated on its own soil, even if only with a symbolic action akin to its April attack. This response may not necessarily involve direct missile and drone strikes like those in April, but it could be similarly measured and telegraphed in advance to minimize damage, thereby avoiding further escalation.
The core dilemma for Tehran remains how to craft a response that deters further Israeli aggression without escalating into a full-blown war – something that Iran desperately wishes to avoid. The leadership in Tehran is walking a tightrope, trying to balance expectations from its supporters for a response with the need to avoid a conflict that could spiral out of control.
