No Tit-For-Tat? Iran’s Lack Of Retaliation For Haniyeh Killing Has World On Edge

-Analysis-

LONDON — Weeks after the July 31 assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, calls from Tehran-allied regional Islamists to punish the chief suspect, Israel, have yet to materialize. Haniyeh was killed — although it is not entirely clear yet how — while staying at a government guest house, after attending the inauguration of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.

The regime’s loudest supporters were hoping for some fearsome retaliation or an act similar to Israel’s daring move, to “avenge the martyr’s blood.” But their hopes have been dampened by Tehran’s perennial caution: fears of a far bigger strike by Israel that could threaten the regime’s very stability.

With diplomatic messages and a regional show of force by the United States, the West has in turn pressured Tehran not to apply the law of talion to high politics, warning it would be responsible for any calamitous spike in regional violence.

This was nothing short of a “war of nerves” being waged on the “Iranian nation,” supreme leader Ali Khamenei said in a speech on Aug. 15, as he accused “malevolent” powers of forcing Iran to step back in this crisis. For years, he said, Iranians had been “intimidated” into fearing Western powers and Israel and their “exaggerated” capabilities, though on this occasion, he suggested, Iran was merely making a “tactical retreat,” which was no “moral lapse.”

Some observers say Khamenei’s remarks were addressed to Iranian politicians opposed to striking at Israel, while others said that they coincided with a Reuters report suggesting Iran might postpone, or forego, its retaliation if there were a ceasefire in Gaza.

Internal divisions

Regardless of Western pressure, it seems Iranian leaders are divided over whether to suitably avenge Haniyeh’s death. Revolutionary Guard general and a member of the parliamentary committee on national security, Ismail Kowsari, has said Iran would take revenge even if there were a Gaza ceasefire. He told the website Dideban-e iran that Iranian territory had been attacked in the Haniyeh killing, so retaliation was required regardless of Gaza’s affairs or Khamenei’s comments on a tactical retreat. Yet a “big operation” could never be rushed, he added, in comments published on Aug. 18.

Western papers including The New York Times have reported that Iran may indeed retaliate after a ceasefire. While others say this might happen after the Arbaeen, on Aug. 25, a key date of the Shia calendar that marks the anniversary of the 40th day of mourning for the 7th century killing of Imam Hussein, the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson.

Tehran is currently busy making ceremonial, security and medical provisions for the date. Some Israeli sources suspect the retaliation may take the form of targeted killings of Israeli personnel or officials.

The Tehran daily Hamshahri suggested this might even be a security-related strike — such as hacking systems — citing an analyst close to the Revolutionary Guards, Saadullah Zarei. An action of this sort was “not painful,” he said, which is why he said the West preferred it over Iran’s use of its “superior” military forces.

It seems Tehran can threaten but not deter.

But as Iranian clerics have been saying, “vengeance is certain” even if Iranians were urged to be patient. Observers believe Iran must do something or it will receive another blow in the future, even if retaliation would itself pave the way for another and possibly bigger Israeli response.

It seems Tehran can threaten but not deter. Months ago, its barrage of fire on Israel in response to a previous Israeli strike (in Damascus) proved useless and fruitless, doing nothing to to ward off actions like killing Haniyeh. It was meant to have been a warning to Israel of Iran’s firepower.

They call this a tit-for-tat situation but really, Israel’s intermittent strikes on Iranian proxies, agents and consular premises have already shown the Islamic Republic is at a disadvantage here, even if the bigger picture is of a strategic and diplomatic stalemate.