What does Iran's "strategic silence" toward Israel signify? by Dr. Miad Nakhavali
In recent days and weeks, Israel has intensified its military operations, targeting not only high-ranking officials of Hezbollah and Hamas but also major figures like Hassan Nasrallah, a key force in Iran's influence over Lebanon. These strikes have led many analysts to argue that while the material losses inflicted on Hamas and Hezbollah by Israel could potentially be refilled through external funding and support, the loss of their charismatic leaders presents a much more profound challenge. Both organizations are heavily dependent on the leadership and symbolic power of these figures to maintain their strategic direction and inspire their followers.
However, it appears that both Hamas and Hezbollah may have “possibility plans” in place to address such leadership voids. It seems that these organizations have evolved into more structured military-like entities, complete with an internal hierarchy and succession plans. Despite the loss of their top leaders, they are believed to have well-established procedures for selecting the next leader, indicating a level of organizational resilience that could allow them to continue their operations even in the face of such setbacks.
In addition, while Israel is determined to defeat its enemies on all fronts, it still faces the challenge of completely eliminating Hamas in Gaza and rescuing the hostages. This is already a difficult mission, and it becomes even more challenging as Israel has to handle multiple threats at the same time. While fighting Hamas in Gaza, Israel is also dealing with Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, which stretches its military efforts and focus.
On the other hand, Iran is staying quiet, and the reason is clear. Iran’s long-term investment in supporting Shia groups in the region is working in its favor. Iranian leaders do not feel the need to get directly involved in a war with Israel because they trust that the groups they support, like Hezbollah, can continue fighting without Iran having to step in directly. This allows Iran to watch from the sidelines, confident in the influence it has built through these alliances.
It seems that Israel’s efforts to provoke Iran into a war by targeting areas under Iranian influence have not yet succeeded. I recently heard Iranian officials state that they would respond to Israel, but not in the way Israel expects. This shows that although Iran's regime may appear highly "ideological" from an outside perspective, it actually approaches these decisions in a very calculated and practical manner. Therefore, unless Israel directly attacks Iran itself, or targets Iranian embassies in the region (which are seen as Iranian territory), I don't believe Iran will retaliate with a direct attack on Israel.
There are now reports suggesting that Israel may be planning a limited military incursion into Lebanon, which would likely be a strategic misstep. Hezbollah's ability to counter Israel is vastly different and more robust compared to the capabilities of Hamas in Gaza. Additionally, we cannot overlook the recent statements by Houthi officials, who declared their intent to retaliate with full force against Israel following the attack on the Al-Hudaydah Port. Lastly, it’s important to consider that Iran will likely intensify its efforts in the coming days and weeks to coordinate and financially support allied groups, which could present significant challenges for Israel as the situation develops.
Now, more than ever, the Middle East is on the brink of a true catastrophe, and it is crucial for all parties involved to recognize that in a conflict of this scale, there will be no winners, and no clear resolution. A war of this nature has no definitive end and will only result in prolonged suffering. This is a pivotal moment for active diplomacy and concerted efforts by the international community to prevent further human tragedy in a region that has already endured countless crises.
Comments
Post a Comment