Iran has kept the world on edge since it promised to strike Israel more than two weeks ago -- a move experts say could plunge the region into an all-out war.
The promised attack by Islamic republic is meant as retaliation for the July 31 killing in Tehran of Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of the U.S.- and EU-designated Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said after the assassination that Iran was "duty-bound" to avenge its "guest."
An Iranian attack has been "imminent" for the past two weeks, and this anticipation has led to frequent bouts of hysteria on social media predicting an attack by Iran and its allies -- including Lebanese militant group Hizballah -- within hours.
"I think they really enjoy that: watching Israel stuck in this waiting period, paying a heavy economic and psychological price," said Raz Zimmt, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.
But the fallout from the anticipation is a double-edged sword that also hurts Iran and its allies.
"The negative impact on Israel, be it the stress to the home front, the military mobilization, and even the economic consequences, will not be limited to Israel, but also affect Iran and Lebanon," warned Michael Horowitz, head of intelligence at the Bahrain-based Le Beck International consultancy.
Why The Wait?
Analysts said the idea Iran is delaying its retaliation because it is relishing the psychological impact it is having is more of an excuse than a proper strategy.
They agreed intense domestic debates, the complexity of coordinating with proxies, and assessing the risks associated with an attack have all contributed to Iran's hesitation.
Zimmt said Iran is "facing a major dilemma" because while Khamenei and the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) want to restore Iran's deterrence vis-a-vis Israel, there are elements in Iran that worry a large-scale attack could drag Iran into a war with Israel and maybe even the United States.
Even if a decision on how to respond to Haniyeh's killing has been made, coordinating with Hizballah and other members of the so-called axis of resistance -- Tehran's loosely knit network of regional state and nonstate allies and proxies -- is a time-consuming process.
Another factor likely affecting Iran's decision-making is the United States beefing up its military presence in the region more than it did in April ahead of Iran's unprecedented drone and missile attack against Israel.
"We're seeing a bigger response [from the United States] than in April, which is probably meant to match the scope of the threat, as Iran may carry out a larger response than the one in April," Horowitz said.
"The message [from the United States] in sending both defensive assets -- but also potentially offensive ones -- is one of deterrence and perhaps the only kind of message that does truly matter at this stage."
Can Diplomacy Prevail?
Tehran has rebuffed calls by Western nations to show restraint, insisting it has a legitimate right to respond to Israel's killing of Haniyeh on Iranian territory.
Still, the flurry of phone calls made to new President Masud Pezeshkian and acting Foreign Minister Ali Baqeri-Kani have raised speculation that attempts at diplomacy have helped delay an attack and could potentially stave it off.
"I am skeptical that diplomacy, on its own, is enough to truly change the Iranian calculus," Horowitz said. "Iran will do what it feels is in its best interest, regardless of the calls and statements urging restraint."
But Iran has suggested a different kind of diplomacy could convince it to at least "delay" its promised attack: a permanent cease-fire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas.
Farzan Sabet, senior research associate at the Geneva Graduate Institute, speculated Iran "may be looking for off-ramps" to justify a toned-down response, and some kind of Gaza cease-fire could be just the "diplomatic victory" it needs to do that.
Zimmt said a Gaza cease-fire may not be important to Iran but it does provide Tehran with "an excuse or an explanation to legitimize this delay, both internally and mostly externally."
He said a cease-fire could lead to Iran either reducing the scale of its attack or choosing a different method of retaliation altogether that does not involve a direct strike on Israel.
No Good Options
It remains a mystery when and how Iran is going to respond, but as things stand Tehran does not seem to have any good options.
"Decision-makers in Tehran may have vacillated in finding a 'Goldilocks' option," Sabet said.
That, he explained, is Iran's conundrum to deliver "a retaliatory strike that is not so weak as to have little symbolic or deterrent value, but not so strong as to cause an uncontrolled cycle of escalation that leads to a larger war."
Tehran is effectively left with either a weak response or one that crosses the threshold of war.
Both options "entail significant risks," Horowitz said, "either for Iran's regional projection power or the risks Iran could take if it crosses a line and is hit back in return."
By RFE/RL
More Top Reads From Oilprice.com
RFE/RL journalists report the news in 21 countries where a free press is banned by the government or not fully established. We provide what many… More
Comments
Then there is also the promised retaliation by Hezbollah for the assassination of one of its military leaders leaders. Hezbollah's leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has promised to deliver a very painful retaliation against Israel and he is known to keep his promises.
However, Iran and Hezbollah may accept an exchange of no retaliation and a release of Israeli hostages for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and a withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. This will be a far greater strategic and diplomatic victory than a retaliation because it will humiliate Israel internationally having been finding one excuse after another to not accept a ceasefire and having been forced to succumb to Iran's and Hezbollah's threat of retaliation. It will be the death knell for Natanyahu
Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
International Oil Economist
Global Energy Expert