With Middle East on edge, experts say Iran has plenty of reasons to delay strike against Israel

BEIRUT — Ten days have passed since Israel’s purported dual attack on Tehran, killing Hamas leader Ismail Hanieh, and on Beirut’s southern suburb, killing Hezbollah military head Fuad Shukr, but so far neither Iran nor Hezbollah have struck back.

Both have vowed revenge, but as the world watches warily for what many fear could be the latest step in a region walking perilously close to the edge of a much broader conflict, it’s also asking: why hasn’t it happened yet?

It hasn’t been the 12 days that Iran took to respond to what was believed to be an Israeli strike in Damascus, Syria, that killed a senior Iranian military official, and this week Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah indicated that the waiting was partly psychological warfare designed to keep Jerusalem on edge.

Several experts told Breaking Defense while a response is inevitable, it’s likely Tehran is taking its time to consider precisely how to retaliate in a delicate, high-stakes moment — and weighing their own vulnerability to Israel’s expected counterpunch afterwards.

The situation “necessitates a careful calculation of their response — a strike that must be perceived as more than nothing and less than a thing,” Ali Bakir, a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, told Breaking Defense. “In other words, it should be seen as more than a face-saving strike and less than a serious blow that would trigger a full-scale war. This is not an easy mission to execute, as any miscalculation could inadvertently lead Iran into a war it neither desires nor is equipped to win.”

Firas Maksad, director of strategic outreach and a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, likewise said Iran “cannot respond with haste when the stakes are so high for its national security interests.

“In April, it deliberated for 12 days before launching an unprecedented, but carefully calibrated, attack on Israel,” he said, referring to the barrage of 300 missiles and drones launched from Iran towards targets in Israel, most of which were intercepted by Israeli and other foreign air defenses. “Tehran has been allowing room for backroom diplomacy before deciding on how and when to act.”

Behnam Ben Taleblu of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies agreed that it was “the simplest and most likely explanation” that Iran is still weighing exactly what to do, while sorting through the geopolitical consequences of action.

“Namely, the regime is trying to figure out how to generate the political dividends of another overt and direct military attack against Israel and bolster its deterrence while also not eliciting a greater military response by Israel that could lead to both ruin and embarrassment,” he said.

As Nasrallah indicated, however, the psychological aspect of waiting to attack is also very real, according to Bilal Saab, head of US-Middle East Practice and advisor in the Scientific and Academic Council at TRENDS research and advisory, a consulting firm. “In other words, they want to sow fear and panic in Israel.”

Saab added that this strategy is also designed “to attract as much world and media attention as possible on Iran and its status and military capabilities. They want everyone to watch the upcoming spectacle.”

An added bonus, Saab said, was the “financial strain” put on the US military, which has rotated forces to the region to potentially help with air defense and deter wider conflict.

Bakir and analyst David Des Roches suggested another potential cause for delay: personal fear in Tehran about what Israel may do in response to an attack. Bakir said Iran is likely first trying to root out any Israeli infiltration of its security apparatus that made the strike in Tehran possible in the first place before responding.

Des Roches, associate professor at the Near East South Asia Center for Security Studies, told Breaking Defense that part of Israel’s “strategic deterrence” keeping Iran from going overboard is the fact they’ve shown “they can assassinate anybody in Iran. “[And] so I think that [the response] will be limited.”

Will Iran Work Alongside Proxies?

The US government has long accused  Iran of supplying and, to some extent, directing its web of proxies in the region, of which Hezbollah is the largest and most potent. Therefore, the question of a coordinated attack with these groups could have significant consequences for Israeli defenses.

In his speech, Nasrallah did not commit to coordinating with Iran, and left the question open. But the six experts with whom Breaking Defense spoke said its highly unlikely Hezbollah would do anything without at least Iran’s consent if not coordination.

“Iran’s militias are not independent or autonomous. They are directly affiliated to the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps], especially in the case of Hezbollah. Therefore, they cannot undertake independent missions or initiatives that would endanger Iran or complicate its calculations,” Bakir said. “Any actions taken by Hezbollah — whether in isolation, prior to, in conjunction with, or subsequent to Iranian directives — would ultimately be a decision made by Iran.”

Maksad told Breaking Defense that there are indications that Nasrallah may have been proceeding at a faster pace than Iran is comfortable with.

“In his last speech, he took a step back, claiming there is no rush, as Israel is left to wait in anticipation. It is difficult to predict whether they will eventually respond together or apart, but they are certainly coordinating their next course of action,” he added.

Kristian Alexander, a senior fellow at the United Arab Emirate-based Rabdan Security & Defence Institute, said that a direct attack by Hezbollah on Israel is “certainly within the realm of possibility, but the likelihood of it occurring will depend on Hezbollah’s assessment of the risks, the current regional dynamics, and its coordination with Iran and other allies.

“The consequences of such an attack would likely be severe, not just for Hezbollah but for Lebanon and the broader region,” he pointed out.

Des Roches expected the response to be a continued “low-level proxy action, [that] will be a coordinated attack by all of Iran’s proxies in Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq directed against Israel, and at the same time I think there will be a token demonstration long-range attack against Israel, from Iran just because Iran has to show it has skin in the game.”

In his speech, though Nasrallah vowed a “strong and effective” response, even he suggested it might at least appear muted, publicly. He said that Iran’s response will be a “slaughter with cotton,” indicating that Iran may take its time and it’s response may be in unexpected means but it’d be lethal nonetheless.