All Eyes on Tehran: “Strategic Patience” or Retaliation

• MEDMed this WeekMiddle East and North Africa
  by Luigi Toninelli

The MED This Week newsletter provides informed insights on the most significant developments in the MENA region, bringing together unique opinions and reliable foresight on future scenarios. Today, we shed light on the aftermath of the attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus and the possible Iranian response.

The attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus on April 1st increased tensions at the regional level. Publicly, the Islamic Republic's leadership has reiterated its intention to retaliate after the attack that, among others, killed Mohammad Reza Zahedi, head of the Quds Force in Syria and Lebanon. However, there is no consensus among the Iranian establishment and military apparatuses on how to calibrate the response. While some consider that "strategic patience" should remain the approach to follow even at this stage, hardliners tend to advocate for a more assertive approach towards Israel. Tehran is thus facing a strategic dilemma, torn between the need to respond assertively to Israel - which has never claimed responsibility for the attack - and the attempt to avoid being drawn into a regional war with catastrophic implications. While the world awaits Tehran's response with bated breath, attempts at mediation towards détente seem to have been put in place by key actors with a stake in the crisis. The US is reported to have communicated indirectly with Iranian authorities during the Foreign Minister Hossein Amin-Abdollahian visit to Oman, in an attempt to prevent a large-scale regional war. This US-Iranian talks have allegedly occurred again in the following days with the intermediation of Arab Gulf countries. Tehran - which has already obtained its results from the ongoing escalation by halting Israeli-Saudi normalisation and demonstrating Israel's military weakness -, now faces a critical juncture: will it continue with "strategic patience" or will the stakes be raised?

Experts from the ISPI network discuss the impact of the alleged Israeli strike on Iran's consulate in Damascus.

Iran's strategic dilemma: Between the need to respond and the risk of a new escalation

"The alleged Israeli strike on Iran's consulate in Damascus on April 1st that resulted in the deaths of multiple members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including high-ranking commanders, has intensified an enduring debate within Iran's national security apparatus on how to restore deterrence against recurrent Israeli and/or US targeting of Iranian assets and personnel in the region. It appears that the Supreme Leader and more seasoned decision makers still advocate for "strategic patience," suggesting that rushing into retaliation would be imprudent, giving Israel a pretext to expand the conflict, which will politically benefit the Netanyahu government and can suck the United States into a direct confrontation with Iran. Conversely, the more hardline elements within the IRGC advocate for retaliation, contending that failing to respond adequately would invite further aggression, rendering Iran's military presence in Syria - for which Iran has paid a high price in blood, treasure and reputation - unsustainable. Both US and Israeli assessments indicate an anticipation of some form of retaliation. However, rather than serving as a deterrent as Iranian policymakers may intend, such retaliation could inadvertently provoke a cycle of escalation that they had struggled to avoid."

Ali Vaez, Project Director, Iran, International Crisis Group

Iran may divert its response towards the US rather than Israel

"When looking at the current conflict, the stabilising value of the recent rapprochement between Iran and relevant Arab countries in its immediate and extended neighbourhood becomes apparent. When calculating the merits of a retaliatory attack, Tehran will have to square the circle of upping the deterrence game vis-à-vis Israel and safeguarding the rapprochement processes it has pursued with regional players like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, as well as with Jordan and Egypt. This may take Israeli presence on the ground in this group of states out of harm's way. At the same time, however, some voices inside Iran will for this very reason question the strategic dividends of this rapprochement and argue that it limits Iran's options in this critical moment. One possible consequence is that Iran diverts its response primarily towards the United States and its presence in the region rather than towards Israel, as it views Washington as the main enabler of Israeli action in the region."

Adnan Tabatabai, CEO, CARPO

The misperception of the adversary that could lead to war

"Iran's vow to retaliate after the Damascus strike, made by its senior leadership and military, has heightened tensions in Israel, leading to public unease and erratic political behaviour. Critics in Israel accuse Netanyahu of using the strike to distract from his shortcomings, risking national security for his political gain. Iran seeks to deter future Israeli actions by potentially employing missile and drone attacks or leveraging regional allies, aiming to inflict costs on Israel without escalating to full-scale war. Both nations, along with the US, publicly reject war, yet any reciprocal strikes risk regional conflict escalation. The situation hinges on whether either side believes the other is bluffing, with Iran seemingly poised to challenge Israel's threat to counterstrike if Iran attacks."

Sina Toossi, Senior Non-Resident Fellow, Center for International Policy

Iran's approach: Waiting for Netanyahu to fall into the trap

"The Israeli attack on the consular section of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, gave Iran an upper hand in its regional and international campaign against Israel. Tehran's ally Russia called for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Though the UNSC failed to condemn Israel, Iran succeeded in spreading its argument that Israel is a brazen entity that knows no limits. While everybody was waiting for Iran's response to the attack, Tehran just vowed Israel would pay a price and cautioned that none of Israeli embassies are safe anymore. All that said, there is a simple fact: Iran will never act against Israeli embassies worldwide, for its diplomatic consequences. Instead, known as a nation of patient carpet weavers, Iranians are now "patiently" weaving a cast net which eventually would see Israel get trapped in."

Fereshteh Sadeghi, Freelance Journalist

For Iran, "strategic patience" is still the way forward

"The Islamic Republic has no interest in expanding the war in Gaza, as it has already achieved its objectives on October 7th: shattering the myth of Israel's invulnerability, humiliating Israel's intelligence and security services, which had previously operated against Iran with impunity, and disrupting the Israel-Saudi diplomatic normalisation process. Conversely, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is keen on prolonging and broadening the conflict to bolster and secure his political survival. In the best-case scenario for Israel, such actions could goad Iran into retaliating, potentially triggering a military confrontation with the United States. Iranian strategists are cognisant of Israel's intentions and exercise what they term "strategic patience" rather than falling into Prime Minister Netanyahu's trap."

Ali Alfoneh, Senior Fellow, Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington

The chance to avoid escalation is also in Biden's hands

"It is unclear whether the behind-the-scenes diplomacy between the US and Iran will succeed in preventing a regional escalation. But it shows the necessity of the US and Iran having standing channels of communication to avoid a mutually destructive confrontation. It also shows that Biden's approach to de-escalation has been subpar as he has put pressure on Iran and its partners to show restraint, while putting no pressure on Israel to do the same. Unless Biden gets tough with Israel and forces a ceasefire, the risk of escalation will continue to rise, even if the US and Iran communicate directly."

Trita Parsi, 2010 Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order Recipient; Executive Vice President, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

Amir-Abdollahian: Shouts in Damascus, whispers in Muscat

"The Iranian foreign minister's visit to Damascus was intended to keep tensions high. During the visit, Amir-Abdollahian presided over the inauguration of the new consulate, warning Israel and the US about possible reprisals. But even more significant was the previous leg of Amir-Abdollahian's regional trip to Muscat. Behind revanchist rhetoric, the stopover in Oman - a country which has often played the role of mediator between Washington and Tehran - served above all for an exchange of informal messages between US and Iran on what happened in Damascus and what will happen now. But the question remains whether the messages exchanged will be successful. What is certain is that no attempt to stop Iran from retaliation will be successful unless Tehran is offered guarantees of a certain weight. Guarantees that may even push the Nezam to accept a weak retaliation and, consequently, a further erosion of its already weakened deterrence. But this does not seem to be the case, at least for now."

Luigi Toninelli, Middle East and North Africa Centre, ISPI

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.