Executive Summary

Iran is carefully weighing its options for retaliation after the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. Despite significant pressure from its military leaders and public outrage, President Masoud Pezeshkian has emphasized a restrained approach, signaling that any response will be measured and aligned with Iran’s long-term strategic goals. While Iran’s missile capabilities and alliances with regional proxies offer avenues for retaliation, Pezeshkian's government appears focused on avoiding an immediate escalation, preferring a calculated and potentially multi-front retaliation at a time of its choosing.

Analysis

Iran’s Immediate Restraint: Strategic Calculations Behind the Silence

Following the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, President Masoud Pezeshkian publicly confirmed that Iran has chosen not to retaliate immediately, citing that Israel aims to provoke a regional war.. Pezeshkian’s statement emphasized Iran’s right to defend itself but made clear that the regime’s focus is on avoiding hasty actions that could spiral into a larger conflict.

This strategic restraint reflects a broader pattern in Iranian foreign policy, where the regime has historically responded to provocations with calculated actions rather than immediate retaliation. Iran’s military, while eager to avenge the assassination, understands the importance of timing and the consequences of acting too soon, which could isolate Iran internationally and worsen its position.

Iran’s Missile Capabilities: A Double-Edged Sword

Iran’s missile program remains one of the few direct ways Tehran could strike Israel. However, recent missile tests have highlighted significant limitations in Iran’s capabilities. For instance, during an April 2024 assault that saw Iran launch hundreds of missiles and drones at Israeli targets, nearly 50% of the missiles either failed at launch or missed their marks, raising doubts about their reliability.

Despite these shortcomings, Iran’s missile arsenal is the largest in the region and remains a key strategic asset. Iran could still launch a barrage of missiles that could overwhelm Israel’s defense systems, especially if used in conjunction with drone attacks and proxy operations. Tehran's missile forces might be less effective for precision strikes, but they retain value as psychological and terror weapons, especially if aimed at civilian or symbolic targets.

Proxy Networks: Iran’s Most Reliable Retaliatory Tool

Iran’s vast network of proxy forces will likely play a central role in any retaliation. Tehran has long relied on groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Shia militias in Iraq to project power across the region without direct military engagement. These groups, especially Hezbollah, have the capability to strike Israeli interests from multiple fronts, providing Iran with plausible deniability and reducing the risk of an all-out war.

Iranian-backed militias have already demonstrated their ability to carry out missile and drone attacks on Israeli targets. In recent months, the Houthis have launched sophisticated strikes, indicating Tehran’s influence in shaping these operations. By coordinating proxy attacks, Iran can stretch Israeli defenses while limiting its direct involvement. This approach allows Iran to retaliate while minimizing its exposure to potential Israeli or U.S. counterattacks.

Iran’s Rhetoric: Escalating Tensions

Iranian military leaders have intensified their rhetoric against Israel in the aftermath of Haniyeh’s assassination. General Hossein Salami, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), stated that Israel is "trembling" in anticipation of Iran’s retaliation, vowing that the revenge would be unlike previous responses. This rhetoric aligns with Iran's strategy of using psychological warfare to keep its adversaries on edge while maintaining strategic ambiguity about the timing and scale of its response.

Salami further emphasized that Israel would "taste the bitterness of revenge" in due course, indicating that Iran’s response could be broader and more calculated than just a single strike. This suggests a potential for a prolonged period of heightened tensions and incremental attacks through proxies or indirect military actions.

Diplomatic Maneuvering: Balancing Retaliation with Global Optics

While military options remain on the table, Iran must also consider the diplomatic consequences of its response. President Pezeshkian has expressed a desire to improve relations with Western powers, especially amid ongoing nuclear negotiations. An overly aggressive retaliation could jeopardize these efforts and further isolate Iran on the international stage.

Pezeshkian's administration is likely to balance its desire for revenge with the broader need to maintain diplomatic leverage. Tehran may choose to delay any significant military action until after key international meetings, such as the upcoming UN General Assembly. By aligning its response with diplomatic milestones, Iran can demonstrate restraint to the West while signaling to domestic audiences that it remains committed to retaliating.

A Multi-Front Retaliation?

Iran’s likely response may involve a coordinated multi-front attack, utilizing its proxy forces in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq to strike Israeli interests simultaneously. This strategy would overwhelm Israeli defenses, showcasing Iran's ability to retaliate without directly engaging in full-scale war. A coordinated attack from Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shia militias could severely strain Israeli military resources, as seen in previous proxy operations..

Iran’s history of targeting Israeli diplomats and citizens abroad suggests that Tehran might also escalate the conflict outside the region. Over the past decade, Iranian operatives have been involved in multiple assassination attempts targeting Israelis worldwide, a tactic that could be reactivated in the wake of Haniyeh’s assassination..

Additionally, Tehran’s alliances with Russia and China could be leveraged to push back diplomatically against Israel. Iran may use international forums to highlight Israel’s aggression, thereby framing its retaliation as a justified defense of national sovereignty.

Final Thoughts

Iran’s response to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh will likely be calculated and strategic, blending military actions with diplomatic maneuvering. Tehran’s ability to leverage its proxy networks will be key to ensuring that it can retaliate effectively without risking a direct military confrontation. Iran’s focus on timing and international optics suggests that a multi-faceted retaliation, possibly involving missile strikes, proxy attacks, and diplomatic pressure, is inevitable.