Iran and Israel: Why is Tehran delaying its strike? 

 By Abraham Shmulevich 

Editor's note: Abraham Shmulevich, Israeli political scientist, president of the Eastern Partnership Institute.

Amid the escalating situation in the Middle East, many analysts and experts are discussing the likelihood of a military conflict between Iran and Israel. However, there are reasons to believe that Tehran has decided to delay its strike against Israel. One of the key indicators of this is the recent cancellation of U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's visit to the Middle East, which was supposed to take place on the day tensions reached their peak.

The canceled visit suggests that tensions have begun to ease and that Western countries are confident that Iran will not decide to strike. This was preceded by an unprecedented joint statement from leading world leaders— from the U.S., the UK, Germany, France, and Italy. They openly warned Iran about the consequences that would follow if Tehran decided to attack Israel.

One of the main factors influencing Iran's decision is Israel's readiness to deliver a massive retaliatory strike. Israeli authorities have stated that in the event of an Iranian attack, they would be prepared to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. This signal was taken seriously in Tehran, as Israel backs such threats with real actions. From a military perspective, Israel is capable of destroying any targets on Iranian territory, and Iran's air defense system would be unable to stop Israeli aircraft and missiles.

It was previously believed that Iran could strike with impunity since Israel did not respond to such attacks. However, the situation has changed. Iranian aviation and air defense systems are outdated, and their liquid-fueled missiles are inferior in accuracy and effectiveness to Israel's solid-fueled missiles. Additionally, Israel has satellites in Earth's orbit, allowing them to monitor the situation in the region. Recent events, such as the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh and a senior IRGC intelligence officer in Tehran, confirm that Israeli intelligence services can effectively operate even in Iran's most secure facilities.

Tehran is also deeply concerned about a possible Israeli response to actions by Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Yemen. Israel has the capability to destroy virtually all of these groups' infrastructure. Over the past nine months, Israel has launched a volume of shells at Hezbollah targets comparable to two days of full-scale war. This means that in the event of a conflict, Hezbollah could lose a significant portion of its firepower. Even Iran's president was forced to appeal to the supreme leader, asking Hezbollah to refrain from strikes on Israel, sparking lively discussions both in Iranian society and among IRGC commanders.

 Turkey, for its part, is not considered a neutral mediator by Israel. On the contrary, Turkey is viewed more as an adversary in Israel. Israel wields significant influence over the military-industrial complex in Europe and the U.S., which was reflected in negotiations with Turkey over the supply of American F-16s. These negotiations were frozen, as confirmed by Turkey's defense minister. Germany has also discussed the possibility of severing military ties with Ankara, and the Dutch Prime Minister even suggested expelling Turkey from NATO. These events show that relations between the countries involved in the Middle East situation are becoming increasingly complex.

Additionally, the recent visit of Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu to Iran and Mahmoud Abbas's trip to Moscow indicate that various sides of the conflict have serious concerns about the situation. The powerful U.S. naval group in the Middle East also influences Iran's decision to postpone a possible retaliatory strike against Israel.

Thus, despite significant tensions in the region, Iranian authorities have decided to delay a strike against Israel. This decision is based on a comprehensive analysis of potential consequences, including not only Israel's inevitable and destructive retaliatory strike but also potential international sanctions, the weakening of Iran's position on the global stage, and internal socio-political risks. Israel has made it clear that in the event of an attack, it will not limit itself to defensive actions but will carry out a large-scale and possibly preemptive operation aimed at destroying key Iranian military targets, including nuclear complexes. In addition, the increased presence of U.S. naval forces in the region adds further pressure on Iran, limiting its room for maneuver and reducing the likelihood of a successful attack. Therefore, in light of these factors, Tehran has been forced to reconsider its plans and focus on diplomatic efforts and strengthening defensive positions, which, in turn, has delayed the possible escalation of military conflict.

https://news.az/news/-iran-and-israel-why-is-tehran-delaying-its-strike