As tensions simmer in the Middle East following the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, the critical question remains: When will Iran retaliate against Israel?

The assassinations of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and Hezbollah commander Fouad Shukr in Beirut have escalated regional tensions, highlighting the complex web of relationships involving Iran, Israel, the US, and various proxy groups across the region. These assassinations are not mere isolated incidents but pivotal events within a broader narrative of regional tension and geopolitical manoeuvring.

The assassination of Haniyeh on Iranian soil represents a significant breach of sovereignty, heightening global anticipation of Iran’s response. This incident intersects with a significant political transition, marked by the death of former President Ebrahim Raisi, and the inauguration of President Masoud Pezeshkian, adding complexity to Iran’s strategic decisions. Despite demonstrating military capabilities with a robust response to an Israeli strike on its embassy in Syria in April, Iran faces internal divisions. These are influenced by the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement, and ongoing political debates, which challenge the regime’s ideological stance and affect its consensus on handling external threats.

Iran’s current delay in retaliating against Israel can be significantly attributed to the Arbaeen period’s cultural and political importance. With over 3.6 million Iranians participating in this year’s pilgrimage, Arbaeen is not just a religious event but a strategic opportunity for Iran to strengthen domestic unity and extend its influence regionally, embodying “Shia soft power.”  Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s depiction of Arbaeen as a “great combat rehearsal”  emphasises its role in rallying national support and readiness for potential military engagements.

Despite commitments to retaliate, Iran’s response has been judiciously measured, influenced by a blend of geopolitical and economic realities. Faced with strategic limitations, Iran employs asymmetric tactics, using missiles and unmanned arial vehicles, and collaborates with Shiite proxies like Hezbollah, the Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen. This indirect approach allows Iran to avoid direct conflict with major powers, thereby minimising the risk of a devastating military response that could threaten the regime’s stability.

However, this strategy has not been without its criticisms. The Shiite communities and the proxy fighters, although organised and armed by Iran, increasingly question Tehran’s reluctance to engage directly. The once-unified rhetoric of “the USA is the big devil, Israel is the little devil” has softened, leading to a crisis of confidence among these groups. They observe Iran’s cautious rhetoric and limited retaliation as a sign of weakness, especially in light of the failure to respond effectively to the assassination of Haniyeh and previous small-scale attacks in response to the Iranian embassy bombing in Damascus.

Iran’s Military Capabilities and Strategic Posture

Iran’s military infrastructure and strategic doctrine prioritise deterrence, heavily focusing on missile technology and asymmetric warfare capabilities. Possessing one of the most extensive ballistic missile arsenals in the Middle East, Iran demonstrates a robust capability to project power across the region, including towards potential targets like Israel. These missiles and a large fleet of drones capable of evading radar and covering distances up to 1,550 miles highlight Iran’s significant force projection capabilities. However, the readiness to deploy these assets in conflict depends on political, strategic, and international factors, not just on their possession.

In response to recent violations of its sovereignty, Iran has indicated that its countermeasures will be “inevitable, precise, and calculated.” This language mirrors past instances where Iran has used restraint as a form of strategic leverage rather than immediate full-scale retaliation. For example, following the U.S. drone strike that killed General Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s missile strikes on American bases in Iraq were carefully measured to avoid US casualties, suggesting a controlled response that avoided escalation to all-out war.

Proxy Dynamics and Regional Repercussions

As tensions simmer in the Middle East, the critical question remains: “When will Iran retaliate against Israel?” While some might interpret Tehran’s restraint as lacking viable options, it reflects a deliberate strategy rooted in its past responses to external threats. Iran’s history of controlled retaliation, most notably after the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani and the April 1st strike on its diplomatic compound in Damascus, demonstrates a pattern of measured responses that carefully consider broader geopolitical repercussions.

Building on this history, Tehran’s current strategy appears to leverage the psychological pressure of expected retaliation, forcing Israel to remain on high alert while avoiding immediate escalation. By holding back, Iran imposes significant security costs on Israel, creating a sense of impending retribution.

There’s also a genuine concern that a more aggressive response could ignite a conflict similar to the 2006 war, but on a potentially larger scale involving Israel, Hezbollah, and Iran, an outcome that both sides are likely keen to avoid. Aware of the severe military and economic repercussions highlighted by the US, Iran’s cautious approach reflects its aversion to risk, indicating that any retaliatory actions will be precisely timed to prevent escalating into a wider regional conflict.

US Military Presence and Regional Reactions

In a robust show of deterrence, the US has escalated its military presence by deploying two aircraft carrier strike groups, along with additional missile defence systems and fighter squadrons. By strengthening its presence, the US aims to pressure Tehran into restraint and maintain regional stability.

Following the assassination of its military commander, Hezbollah’s rocket and drone attacks on Israel reflect a controlled yet significant military capability, demonstrating a readiness to engage in substantial actions without crossing into the domain of all-out war. Both sides have escalated their military responses, yet they exhibit caution, avoiding any moves that could lead to irreversible consequences.

The complexity of the situation is further underscored by Qatar’s mediation efforts between Tehran and other international stakeholders, revealing a broad multinational effort to prevent further escalation. Iran’s recent diplomatic moves, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s acknowledgment that parts of the 2015 JCPOA are outdated, suggest a potential strategic shift toward renegotiating the nuclear deal.

While Iran has long held firm on its nuclear stance, its post-assassination discussions with key European powers indicate a pragmatic openness to revisiting negotiations, not only to stabilise the region but also to secure concessions on the nuclear front.

Despite diplomatic efforts, the region remains on edge, with the continuous exchanges of fire between Israeli forces and Hezbollah, strategic military manoeuvres by the United States, and the volatile rhetoric from regional leaders contributing to a precarious security environment where each action and counteraction is closely monitored.

In this context, Russia and China’s calls for restraint appear driven by deeper motives. Russia’s engagement with Iran, potentially involving ballistic missile transfers, aims to counteract Western sanctions and bolster its campaign in Ukraine, risking further isolation of Iran from Western diplomacy. Conversely, China, as the largest oil importer and a major investor in the Middle East, seeks to maintain stability to safeguard its economic interests. While it provides limited support to Iran, Beijing’s significant trade relationships with Gulf states like Saudi Arabia underscore its strategic preference for regional peace over supporting Tehran’s more aggressive postures.

The balance of power in the Middle East is at a tipping point as the world watches for Iran’s next move. With regional tensions high, Iran’s decision on whether to retaliate will not only affect its own strategic position but also reshape interactions across the region. Moreover, the ongoing ceasefire talks in Gaza offer a diplomatic avenue that Iran seems reluctant to disrupt, preferring to use this period for strategic positioning. As global powers manoeuvre in the background, Iran’s actions will significantly influence the regional security landscape and future diplomatic relations.

Mohd Amirul Asraf Bin Othman is a Ph.D. student in Political Science and International Relations at the Centre for Arab & Islamic Studies (CAIS), Australian National University. His academic interests are diverse, covering Middle East Studies, Regionalism, Terrorism, and Extremism, as well as broader aspects of Political Science and International Relations in the Middle East context. For more information about his research and academic contributions, please contact him via ANU.

This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.