Prevarication or psychological warfare? Iran stalls, Israel waits

In the Middle East’s eye-for-an-eye conflict, Israel is bracing itself for a threatened military response from Iran. This follows the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on 31 July, for which Israel hasn’t taken responsibility, as is its wont.

Israel also expects a retaliatory attack from Hezbollah in Lebanon – its commander, Fuad Shukr, was killed that same night. The key question is why, at the time of writing, such attacks haven’t yet taken place. Does this signify Iran and Hezbollah in disarray, fearful of broadening the conflict? Or is it a psychological stratagem to torture Israel and Jewish communities worldwide, as the nature, timing, and size of any response remains unknown?

Defence analyst Helmoed Heitman said the delayed reaction may indicate disagreement on an appropriate and safe response between political and military leadership in Iran, “appropriate in the sense of sending the desired message. Safe in the sense that it won’t be so serious an attack that it might draw in the United States, alienate European powers, and perhaps even China.

“For instance,” Heitman said, “if Iran really fired another massive barrage of missiles [as it did in April] and Israel responded as it then almost certainly would, would Iran still have the missiles, the launchers and the command-and-control facilities to withstand punitive action by the US, be it military or through more strongly enforced sanctions or even a blockade?” He noted that some believe Iran has too few launchers to overwhelm Israel’s defences.

Professor Abel Esterhuyse, the head of the department of strategic studies at Stellenbosch University, said that Iran didn’t have to retaliate, and he hoped it wouldn’t. He listed many variables it has to consider, including that the attack was against Hamas, not Iran. This complicates decision-making. Everyone fears a regional war spinning out of control, and the Iranians won’t attack without Russian and Chinese support. Another variable is the pressure inside Iran, with growing resistance to the regime, as well as what the US might do, with reports of behind-the-scenes restraint being urged by Washington. Yet another is the remarkable tolerance for Israel’s actions by Sunni Muslim states in the region.

“I don’t think Iran wants an escalation,” said Professor Hussein Solomon, a terrorism expert from the University of the Free State, “but it’s in a bind. In April, after its diplomats were bombed in Damascus, it signalled to the Israelis and Americans 72 hours before it attacked Israel, alerting them and allowing them to prepare their response.”

Dr David Brock Katz, research fellow at Stellenbosch University, said, “The first attack Iran launched from its own soil onto Israel was an abysmal failure. It tested Israeli defensive systems, the Iron Dome and others, as well as the alliance between Israel and America and other friendly Arab countries.” They passed the test, with only a handful of missiles landing in Israel, causing no casualties.

“It certainly makes them think twice about launching another attack from their own territory with similar results,” Katz said. He thinks Iran doesn’t believe it can harm Israel meaningfully through conventional missile and drone weapons. “It’s just going to demonstrate to the whole world how ineffectual it is.”

Katz said, “Iran is stalling. It’s not 100% sure that any retaliation now is going to be effective. It’s having second thoughts.” He also suggested possible friction between Hezbollah and Iran.

“The Iranians are quite weak, but they can’t appear to be weak after the assassinations. The fact that it happened in Tehran was a slap in the face. It was the inauguration of the president, and Haniyeh was their guest. It was extremely humiliating. They really don’t want to retaliate, but they feel they have to, to save face,” Solomon said.

So is this prevaricating a cruel psychological terror tactic to keep Israel guessing and sow angst? Heitman believes that it’s more “the result of dithering while different groups within the system argue it out”.

Solomon said the delay had “the added effect of making Israelis anxious and on edge. When is the next café or supermarket going to blow up? Or are they going to attack the Jewish community in Australia or South Africa, or wherever? Remember the bombings in Argentina of Jewish community targets 40 years ago by Iran’s proxies.”

Attacking a Jewish community outside of Israel might give Iran more plausible deniability but not satisfy those baying for a direct response from Tehran. Said Heitman, “Stepped-up attacks by their proxies will follow, if only to send a message to the Israeli government that their assassination backfired. The challenge will be to initiate enough – and dramatic enough – such attacks without earning the enmity of countries now ‘soft’ on Iran and its actions.”

“Jews have always been a soft target. They were a target in the Holocaust not having a state, and now they are a target for defending their state,” said a security analyst requesting anonymity. “Iran cannot afford a full-scale war. It will be isolated in the Middle East. Every day Israel exists gives it a convenient enemy to blame. It doesn’t want this spider web to break.”

Said Esterhuyse, “Attacking Jewish targets outside Israel – we have seen it before, we’ll see it again. It’s Israel’s soft underbelly. But this would also be a broadening of the conflict.”

Any Israeli counter-response would obviously depend on the nature of the possible attack. Another large-scale missile attack would probably elicit an even harsher counterstrike than in April. A formidable Hezbollah attack might trigger a focused Israeli invasion of Lebanon, ushering in the multi-front regional war nobody wants. Katz said such an attack might cause Israel to bomb Lebanon back to the 15th century.

If Israel can fend off a massive missile attack, it may have no need to retaliate whatsoever, Katz argued. “On the other hand, if it incurs severe losses in terms of civilians or infrastructure, the reply is going to be massive, and Israel may take the opportunity to attack Iranian nuclear installations.”

Said Heitman, “The problem Iran faces is that the longer it waits, the weaker it looks. It made a mistake by posturing so strongly and then not following through immediately. It also strikes me that it might be looking for an opportunity to kill a senior or otherwise very public [Israeli] figure to make its point but keep it proportional.”

The other problem is that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.