The attack on Hezbollah’s communication devices in Lebanon, which also injured the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon, Mojtaba Amani, has again increased the fear of an Iranian response against Israel. However, for now, it seems that Tehran is maintaining a relatively low profile, refraining from direct threats and focusing on diplomatic efforts. This includes seeking condemnation of Israel in the United Nations and providing medical aid to those injured in Lebanon.
Iranian officials are portraying the incident as one that primarily concerns Hezbollah, downplaying its significance for Iran. While the explosion of Hezbollah’s communication devices underscores the close ties between Iran and the Lebanese terrorist organization, the Iranian embassy in Beirut has denied reports regarding the ambassador’s condition. The embassy stated that Amani, who was reportedly seriously injured in his eyes, only suffered superficial injuries. Furthermore, the spokesperson for the Revolutionary Guards refuted reports of casualties among its members, emphasizing that none were killed in the explosions.
Iran remains committed to responding to the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. Despite the continued delay in retaliation, senior Iranian officials continue to stress Tehran’s resolve to act against Israel. They imply that any response will differ in nature from the Iranian attack on Israel on April 13, 2024, and will be timed and executed in a manner that avoids playing into Israel’s hands, as Iran perceives Israel as seeking to provoke an all-out military conflict.
The series of explosions in Lebanon, which have exposed Hezbollah’s vulnerability in intelligence and security, are likely a source of significant concern for Iran. This comes after Iran was caught off guard by the extent of Israel’s infiltration to assassinate Haniyeh in a secure Revolutionary Guards compound in Tehran. Tehran cannot dismiss the possibility that Israel may have also infiltrated communication systems used by Iranian officials and organizations.
These explosions in Lebanon may amplify calls within Tehran’s leadership for a direct military response against Israel to restore deterrence. This stance is part of the new equation Tehran established following the assassination of Hassan Mahdavi, the Revolutionary Guards commander in Syria and Lebanon, in April 2024, an act attributed to Israel.
However, the same factors that have delayed Iran’s response to Haniyeh’s assassination continue to influence its decision-making. These include concerns about a significant Israeli counterstrike, the reinforcement of American forces in the region (despite the recent departure of the aircraft carrier Roosevelt from the Middle East), and the preference of Tehran’s new administration to avoid an all-out military conflict. Therefore, Iran may choose to leave the response to the explosions in Lebanon to Hezbollah, as it did following the assassination of senior Hezbollah leader Fuad Shukr, while continuing to prepare a measured and strategic response to Haniyeh’s assassination at a time and manner of its choosing.
The attack on Hezbollah’s communication devices in Lebanon, which also injured the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon, Mojtaba Amani, has again increased the fear of an Iranian response against Israel. However, for now, it seems that Tehran is maintaining a relatively low profile, refraining from direct threats and focusing on diplomatic efforts. This includes seeking condemnation of Israel in the United Nations and providing medical aid to those injured in Lebanon.
Iranian officials are portraying the incident as one that primarily concerns Hezbollah, downplaying its significance for Iran. While the explosion of Hezbollah’s communication devices underscores the close ties between Iran and the Lebanese terrorist organization, the Iranian embassy in Beirut has denied reports regarding the ambassador’s condition. The embassy stated that Amani, who was reportedly seriously injured in his eyes, only suffered superficial injuries. Furthermore, the spokesperson for the Revolutionary Guards refuted reports of casualties among its members, emphasizing that none were killed in the explosions.
Iran remains committed to responding to the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. Despite the continued delay in retaliation, senior Iranian officials continue to stress Tehran’s resolve to act against Israel. They imply that any response will differ in nature from the Iranian attack on Israel on April 13, 2024, and will be timed and executed in a manner that avoids playing into Israel’s hands, as Iran perceives Israel as seeking to provoke an all-out military conflict.
The series of explosions in Lebanon, which have exposed Hezbollah’s vulnerability in intelligence and security, are likely a source of significant concern for Iran. This comes after Iran was caught off guard by the extent of Israel’s infiltration to assassinate Haniyeh in a secure Revolutionary Guards compound in Tehran. Tehran cannot dismiss the possibility that Israel may have also infiltrated communication systems used by Iranian officials and organizations.
These explosions in Lebanon may amplify calls within Tehran’s leadership for a direct military response against Israel to restore deterrence. This stance is part of the new equation Tehran established following the assassination of Hassan Mahdavi, the Revolutionary Guards commander in Syria and Lebanon, in April 2024, an act attributed to Israel.
However, the same factors that have delayed Iran’s response to Haniyeh’s assassination continue to influence its decision-making. These include concerns about a significant Israeli counterstrike, the reinforcement of American forces in the region (despite the recent departure of the aircraft carrier Roosevelt from the Middle East), and the preference of Tehran’s new administration to avoid an all-out military conflict. Therefore, Iran may choose to leave the response to the explosions in Lebanon to Hezbollah, as it did following the assassination of senior Hezbollah leader Fuad Shukr, while continuing to prepare a measured and strategic response to Haniyeh’s assassination at a time and manner of its choosing.