Many expected missiles to rain down on Tel Aviv following the assassination of Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in the Iranian capital, Tehran, and the many assassinations of Iran’s followers in Iraq and Lebanon. The Haniyeh assassination in particular "violated Iran's honor," as the secretary-general of Lebanese Hezbollah put it.
However, while one can imagine missiles being launched, closer analysis suggests an all-out confrontation is unlikely. This is due to the natures of the Iranian regime and Israeli state, as well as their regional and international relationships. Indeed, past actions, an objective measure of future actions, show that Israel is not Iran’s priority and that Iran is not Israel’s priority.
Israel's priority is ensuring that the Palestinians never enjoy their right to a state, while Iran's priority is leading the region under the banner of the "Palestinian cause." A fully-fledged confrontation between the two would lead to disappointing outcomes for both. It would entail the establishment of a Palestinian state and turn Iran's military presence in the region into a thing of the past.
Thus, whenever the Arabs are close to concluding a settlement with Israel, its leadership stalls, and whenever pressure on Israel accumulates within the Arab world and beyond, Iran foils the anticipated agreement. This is what the October 7, 2023, raid achieved. It saved Israel from having to recognize a Palestinian state, and it has saved Iran from the emergence of a Middle Eastern coalition that could impose a new balance of power and strip it of the ability to exploit the Palestinian cause.
None of this is a secret. Iran has openly stated that the raid has undercut normalization efforts, and Israel has taken full advantage of it. In fact, many believe that Israel was not unaware that the attack had been coming. Reporting by The New York Times indicates that Israel's leadership ignored reports about the preparations Hamas had been making for the attack. Indeed, Israeli soldiers tasked with monitoring the Gaza border warned their superiors, who told them to forget about it.
Why did the Israeli leadership ignore these warning signs? Were they seeking a pretext to launch a war like that which they used to justify invading Lebanon in the 1980s?
Israel was probably monitoring Hamas's movements, and no one can categorically claim that the Israelis did not see signs that the October 7 raid had been coming. Israel's reaction to the attack points in this direction. It has launched a vicious and unhinged campaign whose hidden objective is ethnically cleansing the Gaza Strip and forcing the Palestinians out of the West Bank.
The brutality of the campaign has been such that none of the calls for calm left an impact, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was convinced that this opportunity would not come again. The Hamas raid did not only benefit Israel, it also fulfilled the prophecy of the assassinated Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani. We have seen his "ring of fire" theory put into action, allowing Iran to control Arab capitals under the banner of "liberating Jerusalem."
However, Iran is fully aware that wiping Israel off the map would have to be preceded by the removal of the US, which is impossible. The "ring of fire" is thus rendered a negotiating tactic and a means for applying pressure, rather than a means for liberation.
Iran has been raising the banner of "liberation" since the revolution of 1979. Rafsanjani once said that Israel could be wiped out with just one bomb, and every Iranian president since has spoken about eliminating the entity. However, Iran knows that Israel is a nuclear state, and it is also aware that even if it were to obtain nuclear weapons of its own, Iran would not be able to eliminate Israel. The reason for this is simple. As late French President Jacques Chirac once put it to Iran bluntly, it would be wiping itself off the map the moment it pressed the nuclear button.
Accordingly, Israel's significant escalation against Iran serves two main objectives: ensuring that the Palestinians are not granted their right to statehood and destroying Iran's nuclear reactors. Israel is pursuing the first objective proactively. Achieving the second, on the other hand, seems difficult, as Iran recognizes that Israel is trying to gaud it into a battle.
With all of this in mind, the formula becomes clear: Israel is chasing a fight and Iran is avoiding it. That is why we find Israel crossing every red line with its attacks on Iran in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and even in the heart of Tehran, while Iran has done nothing but demonstrate impotence through the new theory it has conjured up, "strategic patience."
Iran's strategy is to avoid being drawn into a battle on Israel’s terms. However, Israel's assassination of Haniyeh at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) veterans’ residence in Tehran was more provocative than any of the steps it had taken in the past. The incident has tested the "strategic patience" theory and forced Iranian leaders to reconsider. On the ground, this means that Iran cannot simply replicate its retaliation to the Iranian consulate in Damascus, creating a catch-22 for the leadership.
In turn, Israel is well aware of the predicament Iran finds itself in, and it is trying to kill two birds with one stone: take the idea of a Palestinian state off the table and destroy Iran’s nuclear program in one fell swoop.
It is against this backdrop that we should read Israel’s decision to assassinate Haniyeh inside the IRGC veterans’ residence, where missile defenses had been installed, after assassinating Hezbollah's second most important figure in its stronghold, as well as strikes against Iran's proxies in Baghdad and the destruction of Houthi facilities.
How Iran will respond remains a pivotal and open question. Will it agree to a diplomatic deal like that reached following the attack on the Damascus consulate, or will Iran feel compelled to gradually escalate and engage in a full-scale war?
Iran has two options: enter a war that Israel is eager to fight - a war it cannot win so long as the West supports Israel - or take the hit and hash out a deal with the Americans. Such a deal could hurt Iran’s standing, but at the very least, it would allow Iran to remain in the region for the foreseeable future.
