Dr. Salem AlKetbi is aUAE political analyst and former Federal National Council candidate
In the wake of a series of Iranian threats following the targeting of Ismail Haniyeh, head of Hamas’s political bureau, in Tehran, the main concern for everyone in the Middle East and the world revolves around the expected Iranian response. Opinions and perspectives are divided between two options with no third alternative this time.
The first option is a limited and calculated Iranian operation, coordinated to save face without rushing recklessly into a full-scale war with Israel and, by extension, the US, which has clearly declared its full commitment to defending Israel’s security.
The second option is an Iranian military response through which the Iranian regime seeks to restore its prestige and dignity, violated after the major humiliation it suffered due to successive assassination operations both outside and inside Iran. This is felt especially with the assassination of Haniyeh, who was officially a guest of Iran to participate in the inauguration ceremony of the new president.
Evidently, the decision to respond and its magnitude is primarily in Iran’s hands and then in the hands of its terrorist militia arms that follow its orders. The strategic environment this time appears different. Israel may not be prepared to remain silent about or bear the cost of any Iranian response, even if it is merely for show.
Netanyahu’s government seeks to rebuild its image and fully restore Israel’s deterrence and regional dominance without any challenge from its adversaries at any level.
The Iranian regime, for its part, may feel that the issue no longer tolerates any limited response, and that this is no longer sufficient to restore violated national pride.
They understand that responding to Israel’s penetration of Iranian territory in this manner, if not with the same force and impact, will not convince the Iranian people or the outside world of its effectiveness.
It’s true that opinions behind the scenes may agree on a calculated Iranian response followed by an equally calculated Israeli response, as part of a managed process to redraw the rules of engagement. However, the Iranian regime also realizes that it faces the most dangerous war entrapment in its history.
It understands that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet sees in the international circumstances, particularly the American ones, a rare opportunity to neutralize Iranian threats and eliminate all those Israel considers its enemies, as well as all threats to its people.
This is seen as the best way to restore internal confidence in Israel’s security and military establishment and to overcome the effects of the bloody and barbaric attack on October 7 carried out by the Hamas terror group, which left a deep wound that is still bleeding in the Israeli collective consciousness.
In my opinion, the Iranian regime will not view the crisis as we see it as observers or as the world around us sees it. It is a highly pragmatic regime. If the regime’s founder, Khomeini, signed the end-of-war agreement with Iraq accompanied by his famous saying, “I [...] have drunk the poisonous chalice [...] and feel ashamed,” the regime rarely misjudged its interests.
My conviction is that the regime will pursue this interest again because gambling on a broad military response to the assassination of Haniyeh seems like an open-ended gamble with all possibilities, including giving Israel, the US, and perhaps other Western countries a precious opportunity to eliminate the threat of Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.
This could also jeopardize everything the Iranian regime claims to have built over the past decades, especially regarding regional weight and influence. The proxy war strategy could end forever with the elimination of Iranian terrorist militia arms in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and the Palestinian Arab territories, forcing Iran to stay within its borders and ending its expansionist policy regionally.
We must remember now that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is currently recalling all his experiences, historical and political memory, and his highly pragmatic approach before adopting any decision regarding the limits of the response to Haniyeh’s assassination operation. He will carefully balance the regime’s internal fate against the repercussions of any supposed military operation in this regard.
Therefore, he will not be ashamed at all to adopt a cautious approach and return to the discourse of an appropriate response at the appropriate place and time. This ensures the regime’s survival away from the risk of collapse, even if he faces accusations of weakness and waves of ridicule and contempt internally and externally.
He knows very well the circumstances of the current international situation, and that Iran has no ability to face an American president at the end of his term who does not fear the impact of any war on ballot boxes, but rather wants to write a new history for himself in supporting and backing Israel. That is without mentioning tipping the scales in favor of the Democratic candidate against the Republican rival, former President Donald Trump, who has expressed unlimited support for Israel.
As a matter of fact, the decision to wage a comprehensive war against Israel amid these international circumstances is a big risk and actually suicide for the Iranian regime. It is a dangerous strategic option that is highly unlikely.
Israel, too, will not accept being subjected to an Iranian response that undermines - even partially - the major strategic gains it has achieved through recent intelligence targeting operations, most prominently the assassination of its high-profile enemy leaders, Haniyeh, Deif and Hezbollah’s Fouad Shaker.
This demonstrates Israel’s regaining of initiative and ability to respond to challenges, proving its long reach. In any case, the familiar rules of engagement between Iran and its allies on one side, and Israel on the other, are changing. All scenarios remain open to all possibilities, both in the short and long term.