Iran’s strategic evasion: The regime’s response to Haniyeh’s assassination - opinion

Since the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas’s political bureau, we have maintained that Iran would not retaliate or follow through on its threats. Those waiting for these threats to materialize will be waiting a long time. The regime’s fate and interests matter more to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei than all the mercenaries and terrorists like Haniyeh, Ebrahim Raisi, Qasem Soleimani, Fouad Shaker, and others – the list is long.

Since the recent assassination, the mullahs’ regime has been scrambling to find a way to salvage its image, though that image has already been tarnished beyond repair and holds little significance now.

What has Iran done so far to make good on its threats of harsh and painful retaliation? The Iranians have spoken to numerous mediators who have intervened to prevent a regional escalation. This alone satisfies one aspect of the empty arrogance and pride that plagues the Iranian regime. They have stated that they want to postpone retaliation for the assassination in order to create an opportunity for negotiations to end the war in Gaza.

More importantly, in my opinion, they recently came out to reveal new details about Haniyeh’s assassination operation. Iranian Intelligence Minister said that reports indicate no internal elements were involved in Haniyeh’s assassination. He added that according to investigations, “this terrorist operation was carried out with a short-range missile with a warhead weighing approximately 7 kilograms from outside the boundaries of the guest’s [Haniyeh’s] residence, causing a powerful explosion.” Khatib did not forget to repeat the threat that “painful punishment will come at the appropriate time and place.”

This statement holds great significance as it reflects the regime’s deep desire to absolve the Revolutionary Guards of accusations of treason and complicity. These are not offhand accusations, but were published in the regime’s main newspaper, Jomhouri Eslami. Immediately after the operation, the newspaper raised the question of how Israel was able to reach Haniyeh in the heart of Tehran so easily, stating that the ease with which targets can be reached and eliminated confirms the presence of infiltrators and agents within these security groups that are supposed to guard high-ranking officials and military leaders.

Purging the infiltrators 

It notably added that they should purge themselves of the presence of infiltrators and punish them to prevent such assassinations from recurring, explaining that Israel’s infiltrators and agents in Iran rise to the highest positions through deception and fraud practiced within Iran. I was of the opinion that this language set the stage for a non-reaction to the assassination and gave the regime an excuse to justify its stance under the pretext of cleansing the internal front.

However, it seems that the regime’s ability to endure insults has exceeded my expectations. The mullahs have abandoned any pretense of needing a cover or justification for their silence and have even exonerated everyone from involvement in this operation. This leads me to two main possibilities. One is the regime’s official involvement in planning Haniyeh’s assassination, a scenario mentioned in some analyses and reports, but one I personally do not favor. The second possibility is the regime’s inability to implement internal reforms and its desire to avoid opening sensitive files and applying the principle of accountability and transparency, regardless of the consequences.

This stems from their awareness that such actions would accelerate the downfall of the regime’s foundations. The Revolutionary Guards being a corrupt institution that controls the nation’s entire economy makes it challenging to unravel complex accountability issues.

Clearly, it is time for open and direct discussion. The Iranian Supreme Leader clarified his country’s position on how to respond to Haniyeh’s assassination in mid-August. He asserted that any non-tactical retreat – across military, political, media, or economic fields – would incur divine wrath. This implicitly suggests that tactical retreats are not only permissible but also preferred, as they are believed to garner divine approval from his standpoint.

This was the implicit message in his speech. In essence, Khamenei condemned non-tactical retreat as provoking divine anger, suggesting that tactical retreat is favored and is currently unfolding. This inference aligns with his statements. Consequently, it was not surprising that some Iranian newspapers, following Khamenei’s address, defended the decision not to attack Israel. They framed it as a tactical retreat, branding it a smart and prudent move.

Rational Islamic evolutionists 

Undoubtedly, this decision, in Iran’s strategic calculations, is both rational and sound. From a purely political perspective, the regime would have faced significant consequences for its aggressive stance, potentially ending up with a fate akin to Saddam Hussein’s. However, it is equally rational and necessary to abandon the empty bravado and false slogans, as they have become discredited and no longer deceive anyone, whether in the region or beyond.

I am firmly convinced that the Iranian regime is engaged in evasion, maneuvering, and negotiation to safeguard its nuclear program, which it views as its most crucial and valuable project. This program is seen as providing protection and immunity from its perceived adversaries. The regime will employ every possible tactic to preserve it, even if it occasionally appears all talk and little action.

It will not provide Israel with the opportunity to eliminate these capabilities in a preemptive, abortive operation. The regime sees this as the epitome of wisdom and the essence of the principle of political dissimulation that has ensured the regime’s survival from 1979 until now.

The writer is a UAE political analyst and former Federal National Council candidate.