Reasons for postponing Iran's promised attack on Israel

Iran has been holding the world's breath since it vowed to attack Israel more than two weeks ago - a decision experts believe could plunge the entire region into war.

The attack, which the Islamic Republic has pledged, is revenge for the killing of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh on July 31. Hamas, the Palestinian group that rules Gaza, has been declared a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union.

The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, after Haniyeh's murder, said that Iran is obliged to take revenge for its "guest". The whole world has been waiting for a "swift" Iranian attack in the past two weeks, and this anticipation has often resulted in hysteria on social media, with predictions that an attack by Iran and its allies, including the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah, it could happen within hours.

"I think they enjoy this period, seeing Israel waiting, and paying a huge economic and psychological price," said Raz Zimmt, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

However, waiting is a double-edged sword that also harms Iran and its allies.

"The negative impact on Israel, be it the stress that is caused, the military mobilization, but also the economic consequences, are not limited only to Israel, but also affect Iran and Lebanon," warned Michael Horowitz, head of intelligence at the Le Beck International Consulting Center. based in Bahrain.

Analysts have said that the idea that Iran is delaying retaliation because it is enjoying the psychological effect is more of an excuse than a real strategy. They agreed that intense internal debates, the complexity of coordinating with cooperative groups, and assessing the risks associated with the attack, are some of the factors that have contributed to Iran's reluctance.

Zimmt has said that Iran is facing a "huge dilemma" because while Khamenei and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps want to contain Israel, there are voices in Iran that are concerned that a large-scale attack could involve Iran in a war with Israel, and even with the United States.

If a decision has been made on how to respond to Haniyeh's murder, coordination with Hezbollah and other members of the so-called Axis of Resistance – Tehran's network of regional groups – is a time-consuming process.

Another factor influencing Iran's decision-making is the increased presence of the US military in the region, even more so than in April, when Iran carried out an unprecedented missile attack against Israel.

"We are seeing greater mobilization [by the US] than in April, which is probably related to the level of threat, as Iran could carry out a greater attack than it did in April," Horowitz said.

"The message that the US is spreading through the positioning of offensive and defensive weapons may be exactly the kind of message that is needed at this stage."

Tehran has ignored Western calls for restraint, and has insisted it has a legitimate right to respond after Haniyeh's killing on Iranian soil. However, repeated phone calls made to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Iran's acting Foreign Minister Ali Baqeri-Khani have raised speculation that diplomatic efforts helped delay the attack.

"I'm skeptical that diplomacy is enough to completely change Iran's calculations," Horowitz said.

"Iran will do what it believes is in its best interest, regardless of the appeals made to it." Iran, on the other hand, has suggested that another type of diplomacy could "postpone" the promised attack: a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, in the war between Israel and Hamas.

Farzan Sabet, a senior researcher at the Geneva Institute, has speculated that Iran may be looking for ways to justify softening the tone, and an eventual cease-fire in Gaza could be the "diplomatic victory" it needs. Zimmt has said that the cease-fire in Gaza may not be so important for Iran, but it offers Tehran "a justification to legitimize this delay, both domestically and abroad".

He has said that a cease-fire could affect the reduction of Iran's attack rate, or even the selection of some other method for retaliation, which does not mean a direct attack on Israel. It remains a mystery when and how Iran will respond, but as things stand now, Tehran does not seem to have any good options in front of it.

"Decision-makers in Tehran may be looking for a golden key," said Sabet.

According to him, Iran's desire is to carry out a retaliatory attack, not so weak as not to have even a symbolic effect, but also not so powerful as to cause an uncontrolled escalation, leading to a major war. Therefore, Tehran will either be forced to launch a weak attack, or one that risks a major war.

"Both options carry great risks," Horowitz said, "both for predictions about Iran's power in the region, and for the possibility of Iran striking back in any conflict."/ REL