The recent political murder of Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the political bureau of Hamas in Tehran has escalated Iran and Israel conflict. In his statement before the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 2024, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is also a victim of volatility but actively responding to the threat he also emphasizes not to aggravate the crisis. This condition has exposed not only Iranian and Iranian allies’ advantages but also global processes that may accompany a nuclear Iran.
Haniyeh died on the July 31, 2024 in the blast in Tehran with accusations that it was carried out by Israeli forces. This assassination one of so many conducts by the Israeli military that seek to eliminate strategic cream de lath seen as a threat. After the event, the miscreants of Iran were quite vocal expressing their grief that they have right to defend themselves and to retaliate against the aggressors. This is a symbolic and provocative act by Trump, which has the Iranian leadership threatening a ‘harsh and painful response,’ suggesting to them that they see this as far more than an unprovoked physical attack, but an attack on their democratic right to self-governance.
Yet again, getting to power, President Pezeshkian insisted on prudence in Iran’s actions as the matter of necessity, rather than preference, oriented to avoid further unpredictable craziness in the region. He condemned the United States for engaging in the war by arguing that the latter’s claims on the progress in ceasefire talks are dubious. This measured response is a function of an understanding of the immense risks herein involved; a hasty act of aggression might escalate into a hostilities involving several regional actors within the Iranian-Hizbullah-Militias axis.
It is not just physical to wait before replying but also psychological. In Hassan Nasrallah’s words – Lebanese Hezbollah leader: At least, this is what they get; even waiting is the form of punishment for Israel. This makes the Iranians keep the Israelis on the edge without in return launching an attack that will trigger a war.
Iran’s war on Haniyeh’s assassination is not isolated from other wars taking place geographically in the region. The situation in Gaza is still tense, and Israel continues to carry out huge operations against Hamas after attacks that claimed many lives. At sources, indicate that approximately 40, 000 people have lost their lives since October 2023 as a result of the war. This context makes a calculus for Iran difficult; attacking Israel risks a powerful reaction not only from Israel but also from US forces stationed throughout the region.
Furthermore, it is important to point out that Pezeshkian’s administration receives pressures from the internal factions in Iran who demanded a tougher line toward Israel. The IRGC favored direct confrontational approach in the past and may urge for quick response to restore deterrence against Israeli activities. These pressures within the company will have to be managed alongside diplomatic concerns that form another great challenge for Pezeshkian.
One cannot also rule out the international community in this development of events. The following nation has been quite engaged in seeking to find ways and means to end conflict between Israel and Hamas: However, support for Israel weakens its mediation stand; much of the region sees American involvement as an extension of Israel’s interest. Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has not ruled out that American intervention could make the situation worse, not better.
Secondly there is Russia – an even more complicated player that has recently shifted its focus to the Middle East. Pezeshkian has revealed that although Iran wants better relations with the Western countries, this will not happen at the detriment of cutting relations with countries like Russia and China. This alignment may serve Iran extra cards when it comes to trying to get leverage in responding to Israeli actions.
As Iran contemplates its reaction to his assassination, there are plenty stakes on the balance. The combination of restraint and retaliation carries out the general outlook of the concept to control regional influence without provoking an effective escalation. Ideologically, Pezeshkian’s administration has taken elaborate measures not to be dragged into the conflict that could imperil its influence and spread beyond Iran to its allies in the Middle East and across the world.
This puts most decisions made within Iran under pressure concerning the relation within Iran’s domestic power structures and the stability of the overall region. The next few weeks will be crucial to determine that how Iran will strength its stance as regional power without destabilizing the whole region. As experience has demonstrated, misjudgments are potentially catastrophic; therefore, prudence as well as determination will be required as the Iranian leaders go through this difficult stage in the formulation of their foreign policy.
Yet amidst this intricate web of alliances and enmities lies a deeper question: where lies the stability of a region that for centuries has been a peering ground for power rivalry Coups and historical resentments? A novel arising from diplomatic endeavors: can administrations cease hostility from stubborn hatreds? And finally, how willing will countries be to ensure their autonomy as they deal with the impact of their decisions? As we witness all these events taking place we cannot help but wonder if there is any chance for end of conflict and it will ever be possible to break the circle of violence that has followed the region for many years.
