Following developments in the Iranian position in the ongoing military conflict in Gaza between the terrorist Hamas movement and the Israeli army indicates several important matters.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
First and foremost is that Iran is adopting a very precise and cautious strategy in dealing with this unprecedented crisis, and the issue for it is not whether to intervene in the conflict or not, but rather how to benefit from it to enhance Iran's influence and position regionally and internationally. Iran appears to be in a heated conflict with Türkiye in this regard.
What is certain about Iranian behavior towards what is happening in Gaza is that Tehran will not risk waging a direct war in defense of civilians in Gaza.
The repeated warnings we see from Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian and the leaders of the Revolutionary Guards regarding expanding the scope of the war are nothing but attempts to pressure to achieve strategic goals because Iran is very interested in stopping the Israeli military operation before destroying the combat infrastructure of the terrorist Hamas movement.
Therefore, Hamas must maintain an influence and role in the Palestinian territories. Otherwise, the alternative will be the worst scenario for Iran, which will lose one of its pivotal focal points in the Middle East region.
Iran is good at exploiting the facts of the current reality, as it is well aware of the West's sensitivity to the possibility of expanding the scope of the ongoing conflict in Gaza, especially in light of the evidence that any potential expansion means encircling the vital energy centers in the Arabian Gulf and the Middle East with a conflict in which Iran's militia arms in Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon are intertwined. And the Palestinian territories.
All of this means a direct and serious threat to oil exports, and by extension to Western economies, and Iran has picked up on the American message, which was to make important strategic decisions.
In particular, sending the aircraft carriers "Gerald R. Ford" and "USS Eisenhower", and their warships, to the eastern Mediterranean, in addition to increasing the number of squadrons of the US Air Force's F-35, F-15, F-16, and I-10 fighter aircraft, and sending two of the most powerful missile defense systems to the Middle East, namely the THAAD, and Patriot.
It is a message that means, on the ground, the readiness of the United States to defend its strategic interests, first and foremost the defense of Israel, in the event that the scope of the conflict expands. Therefore, Iran decided to maintain the level of its intervention in the Gaza crisis within limits that guarantee it the continuation of political propaganda and promotion of slogans, but without developing any military position that puts it in direct conflict with the United States.
This is somewhat acceptable to the American side, which has been playing a tug-of-war with the Iranians for many years, and communicates with them in indirect ways and channels to deliver messages and even coordinate reactions to ensure that they are not involved in a direct military confrontation.
Here we refer to the mutual Iranian-American statements regarding American warning messages sent to Tehran through regional mediators. These warnings are described by Tehran as appeals and are often revealed for the purposes of political marketing, aiming to embarrass the American administration, which is keen on the secrecy of these messages.
By the way, it is usual in major international conflicts and in periods of heightened tension and approaching the brink of the abyss in particular, and in order to avoid misunderstandings and errors in strategic calculations, countries exchange specific and accurate messages about the nature and objectives of specific military or political positions and behaviors through indirect methods and channels to clarify their positions to the other party.
This happened a lot during the Cold War era and it happens over and over again. It is a common matter and is in the interest of both parties/parties to the conflict/tension. However, Iran uses such matters for mobilization and propaganda purposes in marketing its position related to confronting what it describes as "global arrogance" and mobilizing more of its supporters in doing so.
There is no doubt that all Western appeals and statements regarding the need to restrain the Iranian position and prevent Tehran from interfering in the conflict are welcome in Tehran, as they are in the interest of the regime's propaganda strategy to confront what is described as American arrogance.
Meaning that Iran wants its position to be "All bark and no bite" and the West is well aware of this and knows how the Iranians think and simply provides them with whatever statements and positions they want, even if they appear on the surface to diminish its influence and ability to curb Iranian impulse and influence, as long as they also serve to It is in the interest of the strategies of Western countries that do not want to ignite a widespread conflict in the Middle East region.
This Iranian strategy, which is walking on a tightrope, partly explains the successive warnings of Iranian leaders and officials against expanding the scope of the military conflict taking place in Gaza on the one hand, and its strict evasion of attacks launched by militia arms whose sources of funding, affiliates, training and support are known to everyone.
On the other hand, Iran does not want to appear in a direct military challenge to the United States and Israel, but in return, it wants to reap the strategic gains that it sees in the rapid regional developments.
Iran is well aware that what comes after October 7 will not be the same as before, and therefore it wants to position itself, by applying maximum pressure and threats, to turn the equation around and to be an indispensable party in any regional arrangements, whether those related to the Palestinian issue or the regional situation in general.
Realistically, on the other hand, the American deterrence strategy succeeded in limiting the ability of Iran and its arms to maneuver and gain new ground, even at the level of propaganda in the Middle East region.
The American military buildup succeeded in confronting the attacks launched by the terrorist "Houthi" group against Israel with missiles and drones, and in depriving these arms of a propaganda card that could have caused more regional noise in the interest of Iran.
Although deterrence strategies for their absolute success require rational opponents whose reactions can be predicted, as experts say, Iran and its agents have understood from this strategy what can be understood according to their understanding and within the limits that achieve its purpose, as they continued threats and launched missile attacks, but without exceeding to implicitly understood boundaries.
Mostly, the confrontation remains within the framework of a limited and calculated exchange of bombings and strikes without casualties, whether American or Israeli. Although this game appears very dangerous and complicated, all this does not negate the fact that these practices may have a real cost in the period after the end of the Gaza conflict.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
