The High Cost of Strategic Recklessness vs. the Benefits of Strategic Patience: Iran and Israel’s Calculations

The rules of engagement in the conflict between the Iranian-led axis and Israel are evolving, with both sides adjusting their strategies. Israel has adopted a policy of targeted assassinations, sealing the fate of Gaza ceasefire negotiations, while Iran and its allies are adopting a war of attrition. Negotiations for a ceasefire in Gaza seem unlikely to yield a permanent solution in the near future, as a resolution will likely only come after several intense and possibly unprecedented rounds of conflict. These could include simultaneous operations from the Lebanese, Syrian, Yemeni, and Iraqi fronts, controlled by Iran's Revolutionary Guard, as well as potential direct confrontations between Iran and Israel. Yet the situation could still be managed to prevent escalation into a larger war involving the United States as Israel’s strategic ally against Iran and its four key proxies. A world war erupting over Gaza is improbable, as neither Russia nor China is expected to engage on Iran’s side against the U.S. and Israel. Nor is the United States keen to be dragged into war with Iran, as Israel desires, to achieve multiple goals, primarily the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which are close to achieving nuclear weapon capability. However, an imminent escalation is inevitable in this era of assassinations and surprises.

The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas political bureau, in Tehran due to an internal explosion at the guest house managed and protected by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is a reminder of Israel's deep security penetrations that have allowed it to repeatedly carry out attacks in Iran, with a large network of agents within Iranian ranks and the ranks of its proxies.

What remains unknown is whether these individuals are professional agents working for Israel, internal opponents of the Iranian regime, or if the internal conflict among the pillars of the Tehran government has reached a critical point at which they want to clip the wings of the IRGC, which oversees the implementation of Iran's extremist foreign policy, opposes U.S.-Iranian rapprochement, and insists on using Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and Hamas in Palestine to achieve its goals and further its expansionist ideology.

In the same week, Israel assassinated senior Hezbollah leader Fouad Shukr (Hajj Mohsen) in a residential building in a neighbourhood of the southern suburbs of Beirut. This was a clear warning to Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. The series of assassinations targeting senior leaders and those very close to him is a message from Israeli intelligence, indicating precise knowledge of Hezbollah’s leadership locations yet also their decision to refrain from escalating to the point of assassinating Nasrallah, the most crucial partner of the IRGC and the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Israel's justification for the operation as revenge for the killing of Druze children in Majdal Shams in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, which Israel annexed without international recognition, was an audacious pretext, as the Druze of Majdal Shams are Arabs who rejected Israeli citizenship. Hezbollah denied Israel's accusation of carrying out the operation that killed the children playing football in an open field, and Israel failed to sell its accusation to the Druze community, especially since the leader of the Druze in Lebanon, Walid Jumblatt, adopted a firm stance against Israel cynically using Druze victims as a pretext.

Hassan Nasrallah viewed the "attack on the southern suburbs not as a response to what happened in Majdal Shams but as part of the war and a response to the supportive front" for Hamas in its war with Israel. His statements came during the funeral of Fouad Shukr, after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, and included a message of retaliation. He stated, "The battle is great, has entered a new phase, going beyond being a battle of support. Iran considers that its sovereignty, dignity, and honour have been violated because Haniyeh was a guest." Then he warned the Israelis, "Laugh a little, but you will cry a lot." He confirmed that revenge is "certain" and "between us and you are the days, nights, and the battlefield." Nasrallah added, "We seek a real and well-studied response, not a symbolic one, and [are searching for] real opportunities” to hit back.

The Iranian leadership summoned the heads of its proxies to study, coordinate, and time the forthcoming retaliation. It is preparing for operations on all fronts, possibly even a direct retaliatory operation against Israel in revenge for the violation of its dignity and honor, as Nasrallah said.

The dilemma facing both Iran and its proxies, as well as Israel, is that while the scene of revenge is frightening, revenge is necessary for deterrence. Israel may be more eager to expand the scope of the war to the point of direct confrontation with Iran for several reasons, notably Israel's desire to involve the United States in a war against Iran and its arms in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. This would give it a serious opportunity to undermine the Iranian nuclear program, which is Tehran's absolute priority and something it wants to protect, even at the expense of Palestine.

For Israel, opening a war front against Hezbollah in Lebanon is a useful opportunity to eliminate its military arsenal with its missiles and shelters, which Iran uses to store what it likes to conceal, including nuclear materials. Although President Joe Biden's administration does not want to wage war against Iran or Lebanon, even to get rid of Hezbollah, it is also true that U.S. Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin proclaimed that the United States would stand by Israel in case of war because they are allies. He assured that an expanded war is not inevitable, but American warships have moved to the region in preparation and readiness for a series of retaliatory actions.

American warships, numbering 12 with 4,000 soldiers, may serve to deter major retaliatory operations by Iran and its axis, as well as Israel, while the Biden administration tries to draw red lines to prevent escalation to a major war and revive the corpse of ceasefire negotiations in Gaza.

Iran is divided between those who prefer patience and moderation in retaliation, a group that includes the new president Masoud Pezeshkian, who recently appointed Javad Zarif, the former Foreign Minister known as the architect of the nuclear agreement with Barack Obama's administration, as Vice President for Strategic Affairs. The other faction considers rampant revenge a necessary need to restore dignity and respond to the insult with great severity, led by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. This group wants a comprehensive and massive collective response, meaning Iran and all its arms in the resistance axis, especially since Israeli operations included striking the port of Hodeida in Yemen before the assassination of Shukr in Lebanon and Haniyeh in Tehran.

There is increasing talk of Iran attacking military and intelligence bases in Tel Aviv, while Hezbollah targets security and military headquarters in Haifa, and the Houthis strike vital facilities and energy sources in the Karish field, provided they are supplied with the military capabilities to do so. The Supreme Leader issued an order to the Revolutionary Guards to provide the Houthis with what they need immediately, as well as to prepare plans to target Tel Aviv in a swift and powerful strike that surprises Israel. According to Iranian sources, the Supreme Leader is very angry and wants to inform his regional axis leaders and internal Iranian leaderships that Iran's new strategy no longer relies on avoiding direct confrontation with Israel or fearing a major war in the region. The Supreme Leader wants the response to be coordinated, conveyed militarily to Israel and politically to the United States.

President Joe Biden sent a warning message to his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian, reiterating the U.S. and its partners' commitment to Israel's security and confirming that they would defend it if Iran and its allies tried to attack it. This was reported by the "Al-Jarida" newspaper, citing a source in the Iranian National Security Council. According to the message, delivered through the Swiss embassy, Biden called for restraint and avoiding escalation and confirmed that the Americans were not informed ahead of time of Haniyeh's assassination and are ready to mediate to find a coordinated response that saves face for the Iranians. According to the same source, when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei received the message from President Pezeshkian, he ordered him not to respond.

Israel is on high alert, anticipating an imminent response from Hezbollah and Iran, and is studying its options to retaliate against the retaliation and avenge the revenge. This is something Iran is pricing into its plans for its operations. Indeed, according to sources familiar with the thinking in Tehran, Iran is studying what the nature of the Israeli response to Iranian revenge will be before making the final decision on the nature of the coordinated operations for Iran and its axis.

According to their information, Iran is telling its friends it is in no hurry to carry out the inevitable revenge and prefers to wait a bit to read the Israeli scene and its developments in the coming days. However, if Israel resorts to new provocative actions, this will affect the timing and nature of the axis's responses.

It is worth mentioning here that Israel did not claim responsibility for the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. Some do not rule out that the assassination may stem from internal Iranian-Iranian, Palestinian-Palestinian, or perhaps Iranian-Palestinian conflicts. However, this does not rule out that Israel was behind Haniyeh's assassination in Tehran.

Everything is now possible in the cycle of revenge and retaliation, but efforts for de-escalation are still ongoing with a U.S.-European partnership, seeking to convince Iran not to fall into the trap of Israeli provocation and escalation to an all-out war. On the other hand, they are pressuring Israel not to undermine the negotiations and replace them with a strategy of assassinations.

Everyone is waiting and watching the next round of these small wars. The majority of observers are confident that no major world war will start from the Middle East. Indeed, an expanded war scares all players, regional and international.

The developments over the past few weeks have made it clear that Iran fears the implications of an expanded war on its nuclear interests and its proxies. It may therefore prefer to bite its tongue within its strategic patience doctrine to avoid harming its interests by causing the Democratic Party to lose the presidential elections to Republican candidate Donald Trump. Interests come before principles, after all, especially in light of the costs and benefits calculations of strategic recklessness versus strategic patience.