In the dark corridors of power in Tehran, the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in late July – widely believed to have been carried out by Israel – shattered a fragile balance.
The timing of this escalation in the long-running conflict between Iran and Israel could not have been worse, with newly inaugurated President Masoud Pezeshkian still getting used to his role when this geopolitical fireball was thrown into his lap.
For Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the assassination of the Palestinian group’s leader was more than a provocation, it was an existential challenge.
The blast that killed Haniyeh, which Iran believed to be a missile launched from its own borders, was a violation of sovereignty that angered Tehran and placed Khamenei’s 2003 fatwa banning the manufacture, use and stockpiling of nuclear weapons under increased scrutiny.
Strategic implications
The high-level debate over whether Khamenei’s nuclear weapons fatwa served Iran’s strategic priorities was already ongoing before Haniyeh’s assassination, according to a senior Iranian official who spoke to Tel Aviv Tribune on condition of anonymity.
Khamenei has led Iran through global upheavals, from the end of the Cold War to the rise of U.S. unipolarity and conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria — and through the difficult history of Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers.
Today, at 85, he must secure the future of the Islamic Republic, a critical moment that requires more than maneuvering in the “gray zone” – that space between war and peace that Iran has traditionally used to exert pressure on its adversaries.
The implications could reshape the Middle East’s strategic landscape at a time when negotiators are struggling to reach a cease-fire deal that would end Israel’s brutal war on Gaza and, three weeks after the assassination, Iran has yet to indicate what it plans to do.
Asked whether Iran is holding back its attack on the Israeli regime so that ceasefire negotiations can continue, Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, told Tel Aviv Tribune: “The timing… of Iran’s response will be meticulously orchestrated to ensure that it comes at a moment of maximum surprise.”
The assassination has sparked intense debate in Iran, sources told Tel Aviv Tribune, with some arguing that restraint was the wisest course, fearing that a retaliatory strike could plunge Iran into a prolonged and costly confrontation with Israel that could weaken Tehran and its regional allies.
The restraint camp – drawn from across Iran’s political spectrum – has also expressed hope that the current calm could serve as leverage in future negotiations with the United States, potentially opening a new chapter in US-Iran relations and becoming a more powerful response to Netanyahu’s provocations.
Khamenei’s Choice
Khamenei disagreed.
Speaking to officials on August 14, he said Iran should not be intimidated by the psychological warfare used by its enemies.
Citing the Quran, he added that “non-tactical retreats, whether military, political, media or economic, will incur divine wrath.” While there is no indication yet of what he will do, it is a choice that could reshape the strategic landscape of the Middle East.
The nuclear issue adds to the complexity.
Iran’s nuclear policy so far has focused on its right to possess peaceful nuclear technology, Khamenei’s fatwa on the issue and to exist in a nuclear-weapon-free zone, an official who wished to remain anonymous told Tel Aviv Tribune.
“In a broad sense, Iran’s nuclear policy still does not fall into the category of nuclear ambiguity like Israel’s,” the official said, referring to Israel’s refusal to disclose its nuclear capabilities.
However, a statement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the UN last September and an Israeli minister advocating that Gaza be razed by nuclear weapons were seen as threats by Iran, the official said, prompting Iran to rethink its strategy.
The unilateral US withdrawal from the nuclear deal is another reason why Iran needs to recalibrate its approach, they added, explaining that Iran entered the nuclear negotiations hoping that sanctions against the country would be lifted in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program.
“But what happened (when the US left the nuclear deal)?” they ask rhetorically.
“Iran had to face the US policy of maximum pressure without being able to do anything.”
Will nuclear doctrine change?
“Iran’s response must… punish the aggressor for its act of terrorism and its attacks on Iran’s national sovereignty (as well as) strengthen Iran’s deterrence capabilities to provoke deep regret within the Israeli regime, thereby serving as a deterrent,” Ambassador Iravani told the UN.
“Furthermore,” he added, “Iran’s response must be carefully calibrated to avoid any possible negative impact that could potentially influence an eventual ceasefire (in Gaza).”
This is a potentially impossible balance to strike.
In this context, the anonymous official states: “The threats displayed by the Zionist entity (Israel) and the shift from a policy of ambiguity on its nuclear program to a clear policy of nuclear threats against Iran at the United Nations… suggest that they could later target the nuclear facilities themselves.”
They add: “Iran must preserve its sovereignty and (…) it is considering revising its doctrine. If Israel’s nuclear weapons are not removed, there will be competition for nuclear weapons in the region and Iran will absolutely have to reassess its strategy.”
Asked whether Iran, if it changed its nuclear doctrine, could move toward producing nuclear weapons, especially since Western and Israeli estimates indicate that it is no more than a month away from producing a nuclear warhead, the unnamed official said no.
“Any change in nuclear doctrine does not necessarily mean a move toward nuclear weapons,” the official said, adding that it could mean a change in current nuclear strategy, and saying any change would be directed against Israel because it threatens Iran.
Such a move could worry Iran’s neighbors, but, the official added, “we are open to any means to reassure our neighbors about our nuclear capabilities.”
“The question remains whether our neighbours are prepared to reassure us about their arms purchases and the threats posed by the presence of US bases on their territory.”
Ultimately, the choices facing Khamenei are like the bitter cups from which he must drink – the supreme leader faces a test of endurance as he weighs the options available to him, each of which carries significant risks and uncertain outcomes.
The stakes have never been higher as the world watches Tehran grapple with its most crucial decision in decades.
