Iran’s networked defense strategy is a double-edged sword

 

Binyamin Netanyahu (left) and Hassan Nasrallah (right). Credit: DNYUZ

By James M. Dorsey

Hi, if you value independent, fact-based analysis, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Paid subscribers help ensure the survival of The Turbulent World’s unvarnished journalism. You can contribute by clicking on Substack on the subscription button at http://jamesmdorsey.substack.com and choosing one of the subscription options. 

To read further, listen to the podcast, or watch the video click here.

To watch a video version of this story or listen to an audio podcast click here. 

Thank you for your support and loyalty. 

Israel’s killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has turned Iran’s asymmetric forward defense strategy into a double-edged sword.

The killing came on the heels of the assassination in July in Tehran of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh, multiple body blows to Hezbollah, and the death of a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander, Brigadier General Abbas Nilforoushan, in the attack that killed Mr. Nasrallah.

Iranian Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei sent Mr. Niloforoushan to Beirut to warn Mr. Nasrallah of Israel’s plan to kill the Hezbollah leader and urge him to leave Lebanon.

Israel’s weakening of Hezbollah, the world’s best armed, most battle-hardened non-state militia, reduced the group’s value as a cornerstone of Iran’s forward defense, even though Hezbollah retained its ability to attack Israel with missiles and stand its ground in initial face-to-face combat with invading Israeli forces.

Brigadier General Abbas Nilforoushan (left) and Hassan Nasrallah. Credit: Khamenei.ir

Iran long avoided exposing Hezbollah to Israel’s wrath because of its core position in the Islamic Republic’s defense strategy, involving its network of allied militant militias in Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine, and Iraq.

"I don't think Iran wants to sacrifice Hezbollah or bring it into the fray. It is the top of its spear, and Iran wants to preserve it,” said analyst Ali Vaez, speaking in April as Iran considered its response to an Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus.

As a result, Iran, despite its verbal bravado and rhetoric, watched with a degree of trepidation Hezbollah initiate hostilities with Israel a day after Hamas last year launched its October 7 attack.

Iran appreciated that the hostilities center-staged its Axis of Resistance, which groups Syria and Hezbollah, Hamas, Yemen’s Houthis, and Iraqi Shiite militias, but worried that it put the grouping’s crown jewel at risk.

Israel’s assault on Hezbollah turned Iran’s fear into a reality.

Hezbollah ground forces. Credit: Business Today

Hezbollah’s military strength traditionally has been anchored in its ability to confront Israel on the ground as it did in the 2006 Lebanon war and its missile arsenal, which included long-range precision-guided missiles.

“The genuine strength of the Iranian-backed militias in the region has always been more one of endurance, employing guerrilla warfare tactics over generations. Precisely, this form of combat led to Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 and, later, from Gaza in 2005,” said journalist Mohammad Mazhari.

By damaging the Axis of Resistance’s crown jewel, Israel fueled perceptions that Iranian resolve had weakened. Shiite Muslim assertions that Iran had failed Hezbollah compounded the perceptions.

To be sure, thousands poured into Beirut’s streets in the hours after Mr. Nasrallah’s killing to mourn his death. They chanted, “Labayka, ya Nasrallah—We are at your service, Nasrallah.”

Crowds mourn Hassan Nasrallah’s death. Credit: Tasnim News

However, some expressed anger at Iran for failing to fully back Hezbollah in its war of attrition with Israel. “Iran sold us out,” said one man, reflecting a widespread sentiment among Hezbollah supporters on social media as well as debate in Iran.

“Hezbollah sacrificed itself for Iran, but Iran will not sacrifice for Hezbollah,” said another. A third charged that "Khamenei has a habit of abandoning his allies."

Mr.  Khamenei initially fueled anti-Iranian sentiment by suggesting that Hezbollah and Iran’s other non-state allies rather than the Islamic Republic would take revenge on Israel for Mr. Nasrallah’s killing.

The criticism paralleled hardline Iranian assertions that Israel would not have gunned down Mr. Nasrallah and much of his military command if the Islamic Republic had responded forcefully to Mr. Haniyeh’s assassination.

Blaming newly installed Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s efforts to rebuild bridges to the West and achieve a lifting of US sanctions, the hardliners argued that Iran’s failure to respond painted it as weak in the eyes of Israel and the Islamic Republic’s partners.

“The term #StrategicPatience is nothing but a lie. The reality is that we are weaker than our enemy, and instead of addressing our deficiency and striving to become stronger, we boasted and bluffed. Now, it’s time to put those words and bravado to the test, but we have nothing to show and have fallen silent,” tweeted Mohammad Hamid Sesanijad, who describes himself as an avowed supporter of the Islamic revolution dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

Iran vowed revenge for the Haniyeh killing but failed to enact its threat to give Gaza ceasefire negotiations a chance, avoid being blamed for their potential breakdown, and ensure that the Islamic Republic remained on the fringe of the Middle East fray.

With its credibility on the line, Iran bit the bullet by launching almost 200 missiles at Israel. At the same time, it sought to avoid civilian casualties by giving the United States and Russia advance notice of the attack and targeting military and intelligence sites.

Major General Mohammad Baqeri. Credit: SANA

Furthermore, defying Israeli threats that it would not allow Beirut’s Rafic Hariri International Airport to be used for anything but civilian traffic, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi landed aboard an Iranian government aircraft.

Last week, Lebanon refused to allow an Iranian aircraft to enter its airspace after Israel threatened to use force if it landed.

Major General Mohammad Baqeri, the chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, insisted, “We targeted military and intelligence sites in Israel and deliberately refrained from hitting economic and industrial locations.”

“However, if Israel retaliates, our response will be more forceful,” Mr. Baqeri added.

Israeli analysts cite fragments of missiles that hit a school and a restaurant as evidence that Iran targeted civilian objectives.

It was not clear whether the fragments stemmed from missiles intercepted by Israel’s air defense that dropped randomly or whether they belonged to a missile that targeted the site where the fragments landed.

Middle East scholar Lina Khatib suggested Iran calibrated its response to Israeli actions as “an attempt at saving face while avoiding provoking an Israeli attack on Iran’s vital resources.”

In doing so, Iran made Israel the judge of whether it succeeds. Iran could come to regret a move that puts Israel in the driver’s seat.

Israel retains the notion that force is the only thing its Middle Eastern neighbours understand, even if, often excessive, Israeli force has reduced rather than enhanced opportunities to resolve conflicts through negotiations.

That is as true for Israeli perceptions of the Lebanese as it is for Israeli views of Palestinians.

An American diplomat working on Lebanon in the 1980s quoted a senior Israeli official as telling him during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, The Lebanese “are almost all mountain freeholders. They are and have always been resistant to authority, even their own higher authorities. They are and have always been armed to the teeth. And most of all, they like killing people."

The Israeli official was speaking as Hezbollah was founded with Iranian assistance in response to the Israeli invasion and Shiite grievances rooted in Lebanon’s complex political arrangements that are based on an outdated pre-state 1932 census.

Binyamin Netanyahu’s vision of the Middle East. Credit: GPO

Some analysts believe Iran’s missile attack gives Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu the opening to escalate developments into an all-out war with Iran that would reshape the Middle East in his mould.

Hardliners have pushed for Israeli retaliatory strikes at Iran’s nuclear and/or oil facilities.

“Israel has now its greatest opportunity in 50 years to change the face of the Middle East,” former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett wrote on X.

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and senior fellow at the hardline, Washington-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. asserted that an Israeli failure to respond by attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities amounted to Israeli acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power.

More moderate voices as well as Iran hope President Joe Biden will convince Mr. Netanyahu to limit Israel's response to a symbolic military action.

Mr. Biden fears that the Israeli prime minister could exploit the final stretch to the November 5 US presidential election to drag the United States into a Middle East war when US politicians are least likely to stand up to Israel.

International affairs scholar Vali Nasr suggested Iran may be miscalculating.

“Tehran is likely overestimating Washington’s willingness and ability to prevent such a war… As Iran gets locked into a tit-for-tat escalation, US sympathies will lie with Israel, and if Washington intervenes, it will be to prevent Iran from responding to Israel,” Mr. Nasr said.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is an Adjunct Senior Fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, and the author of the syndicated column and podcast, The Turbulent World with James M. Dorsey.