Within the shadowy corridors of Tehran’s energy, the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on the finish of July – extensively believed to have been carried out by Israel – shattered a fragile equilibrium.
The timing of this escalation within the longstanding battle between Iran and Israel couldn’t have been worse, with newly sworn-in President Masoud Pezeshkian nonetheless getting used to his function when this geopolitical fireball was hurled into his lap.
For Iran’s Supreme Chief Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the assassination of the Palestinian group’s chief was greater than a provocation, it was an existential problem.
The explosion that killed Haniyeh, which Iran believed was a missile launched from inside its personal borders, was a breach of sovereignty that angered Tehran and put Khamenei’s 2003 fatwa prohibiting the manufacture, use and storage of nuclear weapons beneath elevated scrutiny.
Strategic implications
The high-level debate over whether or not Khamenei’s fatwa on nuclear weapons served Iran’s strategic priorities was already persevering with previous to Haniyeh’s assassination, in accordance with a senior Iranian official who spoke to Al Jazeera on situation of anonymity.
Khamenei has steered Iran by way of international shifts from the Chilly Warfare’s finish to the rise of United States unipolarity and conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria – and thru the fraught historical past of Iran’s nuclear cope with world powers.
Now, at 85, he must safe the way forward for the Islamic republic, a essential juncture that requires greater than manoeuvres within the “gray zone” – the area between battle and peace that Iran has historically used to exert strain on its adversaries.
The implications may reshape the Center East’s strategic panorama at a time when negotiators are scrambling to achieve a ceasefire deal that will finish Israel’s brutal battle on Gaza and, three weeks after the assassination, Iran has but to point what it should do.
Requested whether or not Iran is withholding its assault on the Israeli regime so ceasefire talks can proceed, Iran’s everlasting consultant to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, instructed Al Jazeera: “The timing … of Iran’s response might be meticulously orchestrated to make sure that it happens at a second of most shock.”
The assassination prompted intense debate in Iran, sources instructed Al Jazeera, with some arguing restraint because the wisest course, fearing a retaliatory strike may plunge Iran right into a protracted and dear confrontation with Israel, which may weaken Tehran and its regional allies.
The restraint camp – from throughout Iran’s political spectrum – additionally expressed hope that calm now can function leverage in future negotiations with the US, doubtlessly opening a brand new chapter in US-Iran relations and turning into a stronger response to Netanyahu’s provocations.
Khamenei’s selection
Khamenei didn’t agree.
Chatting with officers on August 14, he mentioned Iran should not be intimidated by the psychological warfare its enemies have been utilizing.
Invoking the Quran, he added that “non-tactical retreats, whether or not in navy, political, media or financial fields, will incur divine wrath”. Though there isn’t any indication but as to what he’ll do, it’s a selection that would reshape the Center East’s strategic panorama.
The nuclear query provides to the complexity.
To date, Iran’s nuclear coverage has centred round its proper to own peaceable nuclear expertise, Khamenei’s fatwa on the problem, and to exist in a nuclear-weapons-free zone, an official who wished to stay nameless instructed Al Jazeera.
“Within the broad sense, Iran’s nuclear coverage nonetheless doesn’t fall beneath the class of nuclear ambiguity like Israel,” the official mentioned, referring to Israel’s refusal to reveal what nuclear capabilities it has.
Nonetheless, a comment by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the UN final September and an Israeli minister advocating that Gaza be levelled with nuclear weapons have been perceived as threats by Iran, the official mentioned, prompting Iran to rethink its technique.
The US’s unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear settlement is one more reason for Iran to recalibrate its method, they added, explaining that Iran entered nuclear talks hoping sanctions on the nation can be lifted in change for restrictions on its nuclear programme.
“However, what occurred [when the US left the nuclear agreement]?” they ask rhetorically.
“Iran needed to face the US’s most strain coverage with out [being able to do] something.”
Will the nuclear doctrine change?
“Iran’s response should … punish the aggressor for its act of terrorism and infringements upon Iran’s nationwide sovereignty [as well as] bolster Iran’s deterrence capabilities to induce profound remorse inside the Israeli regime, thereby serving as a deterrent,” UN ambassador Iravani mentioned.
“Moreover,” he added, “Iran’s response have to be rigorously calibrated to keep away from any potential opposed impression that would doubtlessly affect a potential ceasefire [in Gaza].”
That could be a doubtlessly inconceivable stability to strike.
On this context, the nameless official says, “The threats proven by the Zionist entity [Israel] and the shift from a coverage of ambiguity about their nuclear programme to a transparent coverage of nuclear threats in opposition to Iran on the United Nations … recommend that they could later goal the nuclear amenities themselves.”
They add: “Iran wants to keep up its sovereignty, and … it’s discussing revising its doctrine. If Israel’s nuclear weapons are usually not eliminated, there might be competitors to own nuclear weapons within the area, and Iran will completely reassess its technique.”
Requested whether or not they thought that Iran, if it adjustments its nuclear doctrine, would transfer to producing nuclear weapons, particularly since Western and Israeli estimates say it’s not more than a month away from producing a nuclear warhead, the nameless official answered within the detrimental.
“Any change within the nuclear doctrine doesn’t essentially imply shifting in the direction of nuclear weapons,” the official mentioned, including that it may imply altering the present nuclear technique, and affirming that any change can be directed in the direction of Israel as a result of it’s threatening Iran.
Such a change might fear Iran’s neighbours however, the official added: “We’re open to any option to reassure our neighbours about our nuclear capabilities.
“The query stays whether or not our neighbours are able to reassure us about their arms purchases and the threats posed by the presence of American bases on their lands.”
In the end, the alternatives earlier than Khamenei are just like the bitter cups he should drink from – the supreme chief faces a check of endurance as he weighs his choices earlier than him, every fraught with vital dangers and unsure outcomes.
The stakes have by no means been larger, because the world watches Tehran grapple with its most crucial choice in a long time.
