First the killing of Haniyeh, then Israel’s bombings in Lebanon: why Iran continues to wait

Background:

The assassination of Hussein al-Sheikh, a top commander in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), in Damascus, Syria, on December 17, 2020, marked a turning point. This event set off a chain reaction leading to Israel’s bombings in Lebanon on January 24, 202This paragraph explores the reasons behind Iran’s restrained response to these Israeli actions.

Israeli Justification:

Israel justified the assassination by claiming that al-Sheikh was planning imminent attacks against its civilians. Following this, Israeli warplanes struck targets in Lebanon’s Beqaa Valley, reportedly linked to Hezbollah and PIJ militias.

Iran’s Response:

Despite the provocative actions, Iran chose to remain calm and restrained. One possible reason is that it wanted to avoid an escalation of tensions in the Middle East, which could have drawn other regional powers into a larger conflict.

Geopolitical Considerations:

Another reason for Iran’s restrained response could be geopolitical considerations. With the ongoing negotiations in Vienna regarding the revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran might not want to risk provoking Israel or the United States, as it seeks a return to the nuclear deal.

A Turbulent Middle East: Iran’s Strategic Responses to Israeli Aggression

Recent events in the Middle East have once again brought tensions between Israel and its neighbors to the forefront of international attention. In particular, the escalating conflict between Israel and Lebanon has raised concerns about potential wider regional instability. Israel‘s military actions against Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group, including a series of airstrikes and cross-border skirmishes, have led to retaliatory attacks on Israeli targets. But behind these headline-grabbing incidents, there are deeper strategic considerations at play, with Iran emerging as a key player in the regional power dynamics.

Iran’s Role in the Conflict

Iran, a major supporter of Hezbollah and other militant groups in the region, has responded to Israel’s aggression with a series of calculated moves designed to assert its influence and deter further Israeli action. These have included military demonstrations along the border with Israel, cyber attacks on Israeli targets, and efforts to bolster its military capabilities through arms deals with allies.

Military Demonstrations

Iranian military demonstrations along the border with Israel have served to signal its commitment to supporting Hezbollah and defending Lebanon’s territory. These displays of force, which often involve large numbers of troops and military hardware, are intended to deter Israeli incursions and demonstrate Iran’s capacity to respond with force if necessary.

Cyber Attacks

Iran has also used cyber attacks as a tool to disrupt Israeli targets and demonstrate its capabilities in this domain. For instance, the Stuxnet worm, which was discovered in 2010, is believed to have been used by Iranian hackers to target Iran’s nuclear program but also had the unintended consequence of damaging Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. In recent years, Iranian hackers have been linked to a number of cyber attacks against Israeli targets, including the 2016 attack on the Israeli electricity grid.

Arms Deals

Finally, Iran has sought to bolster its military capabilities through arms deals with allies. For instance, it has reportedly supplied Hezbollah with advanced weapons systems, including drones and ballistic missiles. Iran’s efforts to acquire advanced military technology have raised concerns among Israel and its allies about the potential for a significant shift in the balance of power in the region.

Implications

The strategic responses of Iran and its allies to Israeli aggression have significant implications for the wider Middle East. These actions not only serve to escalate tensions between Israel and its neighbors but also further complicate efforts to address longstanding regional conflicts, such as the Syrian civil war and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As such, it is essential that all parties work towards deescalating tensions and finding a peaceful solution to these complex issues.

Background

Recap of historical tensions between Israel and Lebanon, particularly with regard to Hezbollah and Iran’s involvement

Formation of Hezbollah in the late 1980s as a response to Israeli occupation of Lebanon: Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militant group, was established in 1982 during the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Its primary objective was to resist Israeli forces and expel them from the country. Hezbollah’s formation was a response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which aimed to establish a security zone along its northern border.

Iran’s support for Hezbollah, including military and financial aid: Since its inception, Iran has provided significant military and financial support to Hezbollah. This relationship has contributed to the ongoing tensions between Israel and Lebanon, as Israel views Hezbollah as a proxy for Iranian aggression in the region.

Previous conflicts between Israel and Hezbollah/Lebanon

Israeli justifications for military action against Hezbollah: Israel has carried out several military actions against Hezbollah and Lebanon throughout the years. One notable conflict was the 2006 Lebanon War, which was initiated by Israel’s response to Hezbollah’s cross-border kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. Israel argued that the war was necessary to put an end to Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on its territory and disrupt its arms smuggling from Iran.

Consequences for Iran

The consequences of these conflicts have often resulted in repercussions for Iran, as Israel has accused the country of providing military and financial support to Hezbollah. These allegations have led to international sanctions against Iran, further straining its relations with both Israel and the United States.

Overview of current geopolitical situation in the Middle East and its impact on Israel-Lebanon relations

The role of other regional powers (Syria, Saudi Arabia): In the current geopolitical climate of the Middle East, Israel’s relations with Lebanon are not the only factor shaping tensions in the region. Syria and Saudi Arabia have also played significant roles in the dynamics between Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah. Syria, once a major supporter of Hezbollah, has since shifted its focus towards rebuilding its own country after years of civil war. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is a Sunni-majority country that has long been at odds with Hezbollah and Iran due to their Shia affiliations.

The rise of Iran as a major player in the Middle East

The rise of Iran as a major player in the Middle East has significantly impacted Israel-Lebanon relations. Iran’s growing influence, coupled with its support for Hezbollah and other militant groups in the region, has led to heightened tensions between Israel and its neighbors. This geopolitical context makes it essential for both Israel and Lebanon to consider the actions and motivations of various regional powers when navigating their complex relationship.

I The Targeted Killing of Haniyeh and its Implications for Iran

Description of the Assassination, its Perpetrators, and the Intended Message

On November 12, 2020, Israelli intelligence services carried out a targeted assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani’s second-in-command, Esmail Al-Haniyeh, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force in Gaza. The assassination took place outside his residence in Tyre, Lebanon. The perpetrators were reportedly a team of Israeli drones that fired missiles at Al-Haniyeh’s vehicle, resulting in his death and the deaths of several other individuals. The assassination was a significant event as Al-Haniyeh was considered one of Iran’s most influential military commanders, overseeing its operations in the Palestinian territories. The attack sent a clear message to Iran and its allies: Israel would not hesitate to take military action against high-profile targets associated with Tehran.

Iran’s Initial Response: Condemnation and Vows of Revenge

Iran swiftly condemned the assassination, with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei describing it as a “heinous crime” and vowing revenge. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, accused Israel of acting with impunity and warned that the assassination would result in “severe consequences.” The Iranian regime also called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the attack.

Strategic Considerations Limiting Iran’s Response: Political Calculations and Military Capabilities and Limitations

Despite the vows of revenge, Iran’s response was limited for several strategic reasons. Politically, there were upcoming elections in Iran that the regime could not afford to disrupt with any major military action against Israel or the United States, who was seen as complicit in the assassination. Militarily, Iran’s capabilities to retaliate directly against Israel or the United States were limited, making any response a calculated risk.

Iran’s Long-term Objectives: Deterrence, Retaliation, and Regional Influence

In the long term, Iran’s objectives following the assassination were threefold: deterrence, retaliation, and regional influence. Iran sought to deter further Israeli attacks by increasing its military presence in the region, especially in Lebanon and Syria. It also vowed to retaliate against Israel with cyber-attacks and indirect strikes, such as attacks on American forces in Iraq or targets in the Persian Gulf. Finally, Iran aimed to strengthen its regional influence by continuing to support its allies in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen while also engaging with other countries in the region to counterbalance Israeli and American power.

Israel’s Bombing Raids in Lebanon and Iran’s Response

Description of the Bombing Raids, Their Targets, and Israel’s Stated Justifications

Israeli military forces have carried out several bombing raids against targets in Lebanon and Iran, justifying these actions based on national security concerns. In 2006, Israel launched a major military operation named “Operation Change of Direction,” which involved extensive air strikes against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon following the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah militants. More recently, in 2019 and 2020, Israel reportedly conducted over a hundred airstrikes against targets in Syria, believed to be linked to Iran’s military presence in the region. These bombings targeted facilities and weapons storage sites, aiming to prevent the transfer of advanced weapons from Iran to its militant proxies Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Iran’s Restrained Response: Reasons for Not Escalating the Conflict

Despite these provocations, Iran has generally adopted a restrained response to Israel’s bombing raids. One significant reason for this measured reaction is the fear of wider regional conflict that could draw in other major powers, potentially destabilizing the Middle East further. Additionally, Iran recognizes strategic advantages in limiting military engagement with Israel and focusing on indirect means to counteract its adversary.

Iran’s Potential Countermeasures: Covert Operations, Cyber Warfare, and Diplomatic Maneuvers

Although Iran has maintained a restrained military response to Israel’s bombing raids, it has not been idle in countering its adversary. Tehran has employed various means, including covert operations, cyber warfare, and diplomatic maneuvers. For instance, Iran has previously carried out cyber-attacks against Israeli targets and those of its allies. One notable example is the 2010 Stuxnet worm, a highly sophisticated piece of malware that targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities. In terms of diplomatic efforts, Iran has used international organizations and third-party intermediaries to convey messages to Israel, while also engaging in indirect negotiations through its proxy groups.

The Potential Impact on Regional Allies and Adversaries: Assessing the Risks and Benefits for Iran

The repercussions of Israel’s bombing raids on Lebanon and Iran extend beyond the immediate targets, impacting regional allies and adversaries in various ways. For instance, Hezbollah has used these incidents as pretexts to bolster its military capabilities and justify retaliatory actions against Israel. Similarly, other actors, such as Hamas in Gaza and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the West Bank, have exploited these tensions to launch rocket attacks against Israeli targets. Iran’s response to these provocations carries significant risks and benefits, as it navigates the complex geopolitical landscape of the Middle East while maintaining its strategic interests against Israel.

Conclusion

In the complex and volatile relationship between Iran and Israel, recent events have highlighted the significant strategic responses each side employs to assert their interests. Summary of key points: Israel’s targeted assassinations and cyberattacks against Iranian nuclear and military facilities are aimed at preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and limiting its military capabilities. These actions, however, risk escalating the conflict and inviting retaliation from Iran, as seen in their missile strikes on Israeli targets or alleged cyberattacks against Israeli infrastructure. The significance of Iran’s strategic responses: Iran’s reactions serve multiple purposes: deterring further Israeli aggression, demonstrating their capability to respond, and potentially boosting their domestic morale. However, these responses also pose the risk of unintended consequences, such as an all-out war between the two nations or broader regional instability.

Future implications and possible scenarios:

The future implications of this ongoing conflict are vast, with several potential scenarios emerging. One possibility is an escalation of tensions between Iran and its adversaries, potentially involving other regional powers or international actors. Alternatively, diplomatic efforts could be pursued to ease tensions and find a political solution to the long-standing conflict. Regardless of the path chosen, it is crucial that all parties exercise caution to avoid further escalation and potential catastrophic consequences.

video