A senior Iranian military official said on Tuesday that retaliation against Israel over the killing of a Hamas leader in Tehran may be long in coming and take any number of forms, suggesting that an attack against Israel may have been placed on hold.
The comments came from Gen. Ali Mohammad Naeini, the spokesman for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the branch of the armed forces that would lead such an attack and that is responsible for securing Iran’s borders.
“Time is on our side, and it’s possible that the wait period for the response could take a long time,” General Naeini said at a news conference in Tehran, according to video footage on state media. “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.”
While General Naeini did not elaborate on what options Iran is considering, his reference to “previous operations” appeared to mean the Iranian strike on Israel in April, when Iran launched hundreds of missiles and drones against its longtime adversary. That attack was done in retaliation for an Israeli strike on an Iranian embassy compound in Damascus, Syria, that killed several senior Iranian military commanders.
General Naeini’s comments suggested that the regional war widely feared should Iran strike Israel again might be averted, at least for the moment.
Since the late July assassination of the Hamas leader on Iranian soil — for which Israel has not acknowledged responsibility — international leaders have been alarmed l as Iranian officials pledged to avenge his death. Complicating matters, Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces in Lebanon were also vowing to attack Israel, in their case over the killing in Beirut of one their top commanders shortly before the Tehran assassination.
But it appears that for now in Iran, national interests and domestic considerations are outweighing ideological fervor. General Naeini said that senior commanders of the Guards Corps and the army, along with other senior Iranian leaders, were “weighing all the aspects of the situation and will make a careful and wise decision.”
For three weeks the Middle East has been on edge, anticipating that Iran and Hezbollah would launch coordinated or separate military strikes on Israel in response to the assassinations.
With Israel threatening to strike back forcefully in both Iran and Lebanon, diplomats and world leaders warned that what has been contained, tit-for-tat strikes could spiral out of control and engulf the region in a wider war.
The United States dispatched naval warships and a submarine to the region to help defend Israel, its close ally, as it did in April. And Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken has doubled down on the push for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip in the hope that it would lower regional tensions.
But it may be that if Iran does defer a strike on Israeli, domestic calibrations will have played a bigger role than international diplomacy.
For more than three decades, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled with one basic tenet: keep the Islamic Republic regime in power.
And so while Mr. Khamenei ordered a direct strike on Israel on the morning after the Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, was killed, analysts say that as time has passed, the shock and humiliation have given way to a more realistic assessment of the risk and reward of war with Israel. Moreover, Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, says his agenda is to defuse tensions and engage with the West.
“The hubris and luster that circulated after Haniyeh was killed has given way to much more caution that is more reflective of the Revolutionary Guards’ careful and long-term approach,” said Sanam Vakil, Middle East director for Chatham House.
Ms. Vakil said: “The assessment is that they can’t do it all. It’s a very sensitive time for the new president.”
An Israeli strike on Iran’s critical infrastructure such as power plants, oil refineries and nuclear facilities might set the country back years and further deepen its economic crisis. The government already faces a crisis of legitimacy at home with waves of protests over the past few years by Iranians demanding an end to clerical rule. A disruption to electricity and gasoline could erupt into another uprising.
More important, a war would place Mr. Pezeshkian’s new government on a confrontational course not just with the West but also with Arab countries in the region at a time when Iran is trying to foster closer ties.
“We have tension, bloodshed and war in the region,” the new president Mr. Pezeshkian told Parliament this week. “Our relations with our neighbors is weak, our social capital has shrunk at home, and our unity is weak, and the government has lost its credibility with the public.
Analysts said also playing into Iran’s calculations were the religious holiday of Arbaeen next week, and the annual United Nations General Assembly gathering of world leaders in mid-September in New York. Mr. Pezeshkian will be making his debut on the world stage there, and is expected deliver a message of change and moderation, not one of war and mayhem. Iran uses Arbaeen to showcase its leadership among Shia Muslims in the region, and the observances typically draw millions of pilgrims.
Iranian leaders might also have concluded that a military strike would not really change anything.
“This idea that even if they launch thousands of missiles — what then?” said Afshon Ostovar, an associate professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School and an expert on Iran’s military. “The risks are really clear.”
Read More: Iranian Military Official Hints Strike on Israel May Be Delayed
