Why is Iran delaying its attack on Israel and will there be an attack on the Jewish state at all?

For over a week now, international media outlets have been buzzing with predictions of an imminent Iranian attack on Israel, a retaliation for the assassination of Hamas political bureau leader Ismail Haniyeh. Yet as the days pass, the anticipated strike remains elusive. This begs the question: Is Iran playing a more sophisticated game than we initially thought?

Nearly two weeks have passed since Haniyeh's assassination, an act widely attributed to Israel. In the immediate aftermath, Iran's rhetoric was fiery, with promises of swift and decisive retaliation. Hamas’ M90 rockets, Yemen’s drones and Iraq’s paramilitaries continued their attacks against the US and Israel on August 13, allowing Iran a degree of separation from the head-on April episode between the two countries.

However, as time has progressed, the tone from Tehran has become more measured, even as Western media and politicians continue to stoke fears of an impending attack. The situation came to a head on August 13 when both British and German leaders dialled Tehran. In the phone conversation with British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on August 12, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian deftly sidestepped direct threats, instead discussing the right to self-defence:

"From the Islamic Republic of Iran's point of view, war does not serve the interests of any country in any part of the world. [However,] punishing the aggressor is the legitimate right of states and a way to stop crimes and aggressive policies."

This statement, while assertive, carefully avoids committing to any specific action, disappointing many warmongers.

The following day, Iran's Foreign Ministry responded to calls from Britain, France, and Germany not to launch a retaliatory strike. Ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanani stated that Tehran does not need to ask anyone's permission "to exercise its inherent rights." He added that the Islamic Republic is "determined to defend its sovereignty and national security."

Instead of attempting to adjust Iran's foreign policy, Tehran advised the Europeans to pay attention to the daily killings of innocent Palestinians by the Israeli Defence Forces. Kanani said: "The statement by the three European countries comes at a time when, due to the indifference of Western countries and allies of the Israeli regime, war crimes continue to be committed against the defenceless Palestinian people."

Recent statements by Iranian officials show that Tehran is still angered both by Israel's attack on Haniyeh on sovereign Iranian territory and by Western countries giving diplomatic lessons to the Persian state instead of punishing Benjamin Netanyahu. At the same time, these emotional declarations do not contain a direct hint that Iran will definitely launch a massive missile and drone strike on Israel imminently, as it did in mid-April. Iranian authorities are increasingly shifting the conversation to the right of self-defence and sovereignty, thereby attempting to demonstrate their strength and authority both to the world community and to their own population.

The United States is actively trying to prevent escalation in the Middle East. Today, US Ambassador to Istanbul Jeff Flake stated that Washington is "asking all our allies, including Turkey, who have ties with Iran, to persuade Tehran to take steps to de-escalate tensions in the region." International efforts should not be underestimated; in addition to Western countries, Middle Eastern countries, including Turkey, Qatar, Egypt and Jordan, are actively working in this direction. Russia is also not leaving the region without its attention.

A calculated strategy?

However, given Iran's previous experience, it's hard to believe that Tehran, which ventured an unprecedented attack on Israel in April, will submit to external pressure. Most likely, the delay in striking Israel is a cunning, well-thought-out policy of the new Iranian president.

By striking the Jewish state, Iran would turn Western countries against itself and strengthen their support for the almost isolated Israeli prime minister. Iranian authorities today want neither of these outcomes.

Each day that Tehran refrains from military action, it nevertheless exerts great pressure on Israel – where air raid alarms have been sounding for days as they prepare for an act of retaliation from the Islamic Republic. At the same time, Pezeshkian deprives Netanyahu of arguments before the United States and hinders his ability to legitimise the military operation in the Gaza Strip, as there is still no Iranian aggression.

If this continues for some time, the world's attention will focus on the actions of the IDF, while Israeli public attention and Biden's focus will be on criticising Netanyahu’s actions and lack of ability to deal with the hostages, two of which were killed the other day in a bid by Hamas to make the Israeli leader look feckless in the face of the detentions. Iran's non-belligerent policy will become a trump card for it in future negotiations on the nuclear deal and the possible lifting of Western sanctions – this has been the key policy behind Pezeshkian’s entente cordial message since winning the presidential election in July.

New thought process? 

If this is indeed the case, it can be said that the new Iranian president has managed to outmanoeuvre both the West and the Israeli leadership by refraining from actual combat operations. How much of this policy is to do with former foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif who stepped down on August 13 remains to be seen, but so far the new administration has managed to break out of the stereotypical response expected by foreign countries of the Iranian regime.  

As bne IntelliNews noted in April, in response, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu issued a warning: "Israel is ready for Iran's attack and will retaliate without mercy."

Iran's Defence Ministry, in turn, threatened to strike back against any nation that grants Israel access to its airspace or territory for such an assault, but that tone was while President Ebrahim Raisi was still in power before his fateful crash close to the border of Azerbaijan. But unlike the April episode, we are not in a game of who has more guns this time around; everyone well knows the damage to both countries would be catastrophic and the outcomes would be unknown.

In the volatile theatre of Middle Eastern politics, Iran has demonstrated that sometimes the most powerful move is the one you don't make. As we continue to watch this high-stakes game unfold, it's clear that Tehran's strategy deserves closer examination and, perhaps, a degree of grudging respect for its complexity and effectiveness. Who was behind this change in tone, will probably be a fact for the history books.