Waiting period for Iran’s attack on Israel ‘could be long,’ says IRGC general

Iranian regime forced to deal with internal problems, fears of Israeli retaliation

Read this article in:

After three weeks of threatening to attack Israel, a spokesman for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) announced on Tuesday that the attack could be delayed even further.

“Time is in our favor and the waiting period for this response could be long,” said Gen. Ali Mohammad Naeini, a spokesman for the IRGC, which was responsible for securing Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. The top political leader died three weeks ago in a blast in Tehran which Iran has blamed on Israel.

Naeini’s comments came at a press briefing to Iranian state media.

“It’s possible that Iran’s response will not be a repeat of previous operations,” he said about the Iranian missile and rocket attack last April, which largely failed due to Israel’s aerial defenses and the help of U.S. and other regional allied forces.

Naeini said Iranian military commanders and leaders would make “a careful and wise decision.”

The regime and its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah have previously signaled they would await the outcome of the ongoing hostage release-ceasefire deal negotiations between Israel and Hamas before responding to the killings of Haniyeh and Hezbollah’s military leader Fuad Shukr last month.

Iran’s Mission to the United Nations told The Wall Street Journal that any eventual strike would aim to “punish” Israel while deterring it from acting on Iranian soil again but would be calculated to “avoid any possible adverse impact that could potentially influence a prospective cease-fire.”

“The timing, conditions, and manner of Iran’s response will be meticulously orchestrated to ensure that it occurs at a moment of maximum surprise,” the mission added.

Naeini also said that the regime would support a deal to end the war and help Palestinians in Gaza, but added that it considered the United States to be “a party to the [Gaza] war.”

The threats of an attack serve Iran “as leverage for bringing about Israeli concessions to get the cease-fire in place, and also providing motivation to the U.S. to do all they can to push all sides,” a U.S. official told the WSJ.

The long waiting time was reportedly also due to Iran's need to “clean house” following the intelligence failure that led to the assassination of Haniyeh. However, this also allowed the U.S. to bolster its regional forces, further complicating the calculations for a response.

Israeli security experts have noted that the most likely mode of attack was a combined drone and missile assault similar to the one last April, possibly coordinated with Hezbollah. However, there are several other strategies Iran might consider. These include large-scale terror attacks on Israeli or Jewish institutions abroad, which the regime has executed in the past. Other options include cyber attacks or terror attacks inside Israel.

This scenario leaves the regime with the tall task of balancing numerous factors, including the need for revenge after the humiliating assassination; the need to appear strong in front of its proxies who reportedly are itching to strike back; the goal of preserving a potential truce deal in Gaza; and perhaps most importantly, measuring the attack to avoid provoking a devastating response from Israel.

While its proxies, especially within Iraq and Yemen, are pushing for aggressive action against Israel, according to the NYT, Iran is seeking a middle ground that will avoid endangering the regime itself.

Israel’s highly surgical and measured response to the April attacks demonstrated its ability to hit the regime’s most sensitive sites. Strikes on port facilities, like the ones Israel conducted against Iran’s proxy in Yemen just weeks ago, could severely hurt a regime that is trying to regain its footing after the death of its former president, and the killing of Haniyeh shortly after the new Iranian president was inaugurated.

Strikes on infrastructure, such as ports, oil refineries and pipelines, are feared to exacerbate the ongoing economic struggles and could give rise to renewed uprisings across the country.

The death of Haniyeh also derailed the newly-elected Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s intentions to turn a new leaf and moderate the regime’s image in the West and the region, in the hopes of sanctions relief.

A regional war would be the death knell to these plans.

“We have tension, bloodshed and war in the region,” Pezeshkian noted during a speech in the Iranian Parliament, as the New York Times reported.

“Our relations with our neighbors is weak, our social capital has shrunk at home, and our unity is weak, and the government has lost its credibility with the public.”

With the regime clearly aware of the high stakes, the region continues to await whether, when and how it will attack Israel in the coming weeks.