Naad-e-Ali Sulehria
Context
The assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31st has brought Iran and Israel, and the larger Middle East, to the brink of all-out conflict. Not only that, it has also escalated the great power rivalry, which was already simmering over the situation of Ukraine. For the first time, Ukrainian forces have crossed the Russian border in the Kursk region and have taken over a few border cities.
Iran has threaten retaliation against Israel. While Israel has previously targeted other high profile Iranian figures, such as its nuclear scientists. However, for various reasons the country failed to give a proportionate response. One of the main one being that Iran does not want a full-blown conflict which can result in a strike against its nuclear program.
It was just on April 14 this year that Iran launched a barrage of missiles at Israel for assassinating two of its generals, targeted at the Iranian consular building in Syria. Most of these projectiles were intercepted. The Iranian reaction this time may be different. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has vowed to punish Israel and recently denounced what he described as Israel’s psychological warfare, intended to make Iran reconsider its reprisal. He also offered a religious justification, declaring that any retreat—whether military, political, or economic—would be a grave sin in the eyes of God, inviting “divine wrath.”
While the nations response is inevitable, the uncertainty around its timing and scale, have intensified psychological strain and war fatigue in Israel. While some see this delay as reflecting Iran’s dilemma—caught between the need to respond decisively to Israel and the desire to avoid being drawn into a catastrophic regional war. This is especially true when the U.S. is fully backing Israel. However, others interpret the delay as a sign of Iran’s strategic patience, possibly preparing a more powerful and calculated response than before.
Why the Delay in Response?
Recently, Ali Mohammad Naini, spokesperson for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, disclosed that the nation is unlikely to repeat previous style of operations and that there might be a significant pause. Two factors are likely contributing as Iran deliberates.
First, the annual ‘Arbaeen Walk,’ a major Shiite pilgrimage to Iraq is underway, with over 2.6 million Iranian pilgrims crossing the border. According to the Iranian Airport Authority, more than 100 flights have operated between Iran and Iraq over the past days, transporting thousands of Iranian pilgrims. With over 20 million pilgrims from Iran, Iraq, and other countries participating this year, Tehran is highly focused on securing this major event and is hesitant to engage in a conflict with Israel. Once the pilgrimage concludes, Iran will likely be able to refocus.
The second factor involves Iran’s continued efforts to secure international support for what it views as its legal right to defend its sovereignty and deter any further Israeli aggression on its territory.
Efforts towards Cease Fire
In the midst of heightened tensions, the U.S. has put forward a bridge ceasefire proposal for Gaza, contingent on the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. At the same time, the U.S. has called on OIC member states to urge Tehran to show restraint, cautioning that regional escalation could undermine the chances of securing a truce. To reach a deal between Hamas and Israel, the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken also visited the region again.
Following pressure from the U.S, reportedly Israel accepted the terms of the deal on 19 August. The U.S. is now counting on its Arab partners Qatar and Egypt to persuade Hamas to comply as well. While these efforts aim to prevent a broader conflict, Iran has downplayed these developments, insisting that a ceasefire will not deter Tehran’s plans for retaliation against Israel, indicating that it’s a matter of when, not if.
Experts estimate that instead of launching costly missile strikes, Iran may copy Israel’s tactic and may attempt to target top Israeli officials. Whatever form Iran’s reaction takes, it is clear that such an action would provoke a full-scale response from Israel, significantly impacting regional security, particularly for its neighbors, including the GCC countries and Pakistan.
China and Russia
Both Russia and China have echoed Tehran’s narrative on protecting its “sovereignty, security, and national dignity.” Reports suggest that Iran is seeking to acquire Chinese spy satellites to enhance its capability to target U.S. and Israeli forces. This latest deal builds on the 25-year strategic agreement signed between Iran and China in 2021, in which both countries committed to advancing military, security, and economic cooperation.
Similarly, following the assassination of Haniyah, Russia’s Secretary of the Security Council visited Tehran to discuss enhanced security ties and pledged to increase military contracts between Tehran and Moscow. Subsequently, reports emerged that Russia had transferred Iskander missile systems and Murmansk-BN electronic warfare systems to Iran, adding to its already extensive arsenal of over 3,000 ballistic missiles. Russia will likely counteract NATO supplying assistance and weapons to Ukraine by bolstering its ally Iran and use this as a leverage against the West.
OIC, GCC, Turkey and Pakistan
Additionally, 57 Muslim-majority countries expressed their support for Iran during an emergency meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on August 7th. While all member states condemned Haniyah’s killing as a blatant violation of Iran’s sovereignty, Pakistan voiced the strongest support for Iran in confronting Israeli aggression.
GCC countries with strategic partnerships with the U.S. are likely to avoid coming to Iran’s aid, as their agreements prohibit them from attacking a key U.S. ally. The same applies to Turkey, which could risk its NATO membership if it sides with Iran. However, Turkey’s recent stance towards Israel suggests it might be willing to take that risk. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has issued early warnings suggesting its military may get involved on the side of the Palestinians. Additionally, Turkish Ambassador to Iran has reportedly indicated support for Iran’s response, implying that Turkey and other Muslim-majority countries bear a shared responsibility to respond to Haniya’s assassination.
If Turkey becomes entangled in the conflict, Pakistan, with one of the strongest military forces in the Muslim world, would face immense pressure to take sides. This would create a strategic dilemma for the country, in the same way as it has for Turkey, which may want to defend Iran against Israel but also avoid jeopardizing ties with its key security partner, the U.S.
Supporting Iran could help Pakistan’s military restore its declining domestic reputation and advance the objective of fostering religiously inspired stability in the country. Even opposition figures like Imran Khan, whose standoff with the military establishment remains a major factor in Pakistan’s political polarization, might alter his position and support the military.
Alternatively, if bull blown conflict erupts in the Middle East and Pakistan supports remains lackluster for Iran, the country could face protests, especially from the religious groups. While the state might resort to cracking down on political dissent to contain domestic unrest, this could widen the gap between the civil-military establishment and the public.
