How will Iran respond to the assassination of a key ally in the Middle East?

The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah, has significantly heightened the risk of a large-scale military conflict in the Middle East – one that could be disastrous for the region and even for the world at large.

The tensions, which have already reached a critical level, may now erupt into a full-blown war which will affect not only Lebanon and Israel but possibly other regional powers like Iran and Turkey. With Hezbollah – Iran’s primary military and political asset in the region – now practically decapitated, a pressing question arises: How will Tehran respond? Or will it respond at all?

Nasrallah’s death could trigger a series of retaliatory strikes and large-scale military operations, which would further destabilize the situation in the region and pose a threat to global energy markets and international security. Considering the recent assassinations of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and one of Hezbollah’s founders, Fuad Shukr, in Beirut, it’s clear that Israel isn’t about to stop.

However, it’s important to note that the death of Hezbollah’s leader was not really unexpected. Israeli intelligence had been hunting for Nasrallah for years, and even if the tragic events of October 7 hadn’t occurred, it was only a matter of time before Israeli agencies would have eliminated the person who they considered a threat to their national security. Nasrallah hadn’t been seen in public for many years and constantly moved from one place to another, evidently fearing for his life. However, his death marks the end of an entire era.

Who was Hassan Nasrallah?

Nasrallah was, in many ways, an enigmatic figure. A devoted Shiite, he joined the Amal movement – which gained prominence after the start of the 1975 Lebanese Civil War – as a young man. Later, he studied at a Shiite seminary in the holy Iraqi city of Najaf before returning to Lebanon, where he rejoined the Amal movement.

In 1982, shortly after Israel invaded Lebanon, Nasrallah and his allies broke away from Amal and formed a new military movement called Islamic Amal. They received significant military and organizational support from Iran’s newly established Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which helped this Lebanese movement become a leading Shiite force. Eventually, this group evolved into Hezbollah.

Read more

In 1992, Nasrallah became Hezbollah’s leader following the assassination of his predecessor, Hezbollah Secretary-General Abbas al-Musawi. At that time, Nasrallah was just 32-years-old. Under his leadership, the small movement, which was primarily aimed at resisting Israeli forces in Lebanon, evolved into a military power that surpassed the Lebanese Army.

Almost immediately, Nasrallah intensified the fight against Israel. In 2000, Hezbollah launched what became known as the “Small War” against Israel, which culminated in the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. Although Nasrallah lost his eldest son, Hadi, in a fight with Israeli soldiers, he proclaimed that Hezbollah had secured its first victory over Israel. He also vowed that the movement would never disarm, insisting that “the entire territory of Lebanon must be liberated.” 

Under Nasrallah, Hezbollah also became a major political force that established its own social programs, centers, and medical facilities. It also became a crucial instrument in Iran’s strategy to expand its regional influence. Hezbollah trained Hamas fighters and Shiite rebels in Iraq and Yemen, and received missiles and munitions from Iran for attacking Israel. As a result, the movement became a major thorn in Israel’s side, and Western Jerusalem vowed to eliminate it. 

Despite the fact that Hezbollah almost completely relied on the support of Iran, tensions occasionally arose between Nasrallah and Tehran’s top leadership. While Iran sometimes opted for a more diplomatic approach, Nasrallah often disagreed with this position.  Following Hamas’ unprecedented attack on Israel last October, clashes between Hezbollah and Israel intensified. Hezbollah launched rockets at Israeli positions “in solidarity with the Palestinians.”

In November 2023, Nasrallah said the Hamas attack had been “100% Palestinian in terms of decision-making and execution,” but emphasized that Hezbollah’s strikes against Israel were also “very important and significant.” Hezbollah fired more than 8,000 rockets at northern Israel, and used anti-tank missiles and drones to target armored vehicles and military facilities. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) retaliated with airstrikes, and attacked Hezbollah positions in Lebanon with tank and artillery fire.

Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah were not involved in the Hamas attack on Israel last October. In fact, even Israeli officials noted that there was no evidence linking Hezbollah or Iran to the attack. However, Nasrallah’s provocative behavior prompted the Israeli leadership to take military action. His statements and threats almost played into the hands of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who wanted to unify the nation in order to achieve his own political ambitions – something that he indeed managed to do. 

Several media reports indicated that, back in August, IRGC leaders held several meetings with Hezbollah’s leaders in Tehran, urging them not to provoke Israel. However, Hezbollah representatives accused their Iranian counterparts of inaction and said they were willing to fight on their own if Iran chose to stay on the sidelines.

These discussions occurred against the background of the assassination of Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. Many countries in the region and around the world expected Iran to respond, since this looked like a direct affront to the country’s sovereignty and security. Yet, so far, Iran hasn’t reacted in any way. Moreover, Israel has not officially claimed responsibility for the events, even though Iran directly blamed it for the assassination.

It’s also worth noting that relations between Hamas and Hezbollah haven’t always been friendly. Sometimes the groups even fought against each other. Most recently, this happened during the Syrian civil war, when some Hamas members fought alongside forces opposing Syrian President Bashar Assad, drawing sharp condemnation from both Hezbollah and Iran. Over time, both sides found common ground in opposing Israel, and the situation normalized. However, there has been no real alliance between Hamas and Hezbollah. 

Why does Iran remain silent?

In light of these events, both experts and the general population alike wonder: Why does Iran remain silent? Indeed, in recent weeks the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, along with various Iranian political and military figures, have made strong statements, particularly following the mass explosions of pagers and other devices in Lebanon that resulted in dozens of casualties, killing both Hezbollah militants and innocent civilians.

Israel doesn’t hide the fact that it launched a full-scale military operation to completely dismantle Iran’s key asset in the region, Hezbollah. In his last public address, Nasrallah accused Israel of having crossed “all red lines,” admitting that the attack had been an ”unprecedented blow” for Hezbollah. Shortly afterwards, Israel intensified attacks on Hezbollah and carried out extensive bombings that killed almost 800 people.

The first reports about Nasrallah’s death surfaced on the evening of Friday, September 27. On that day, the IDF conducted an airstrike on Hezbollah’s central headquarters in the Harat Hreik municipality in the Dahieh suburbs, south of Beirut. According to media reports, the target of this strike was Nasrallah. The attack was carried out by the 119th Squadron of the Israeli Air Force, also known as the Bat Squadron, using F-16I Soufa fighter jets, which dropped several tons of munitions.

Read more

Initially, it was unknown whether Nasrallah had died in the attack. However, on September 28, 2024, the IDF officially confirmed his death, a claim that was later confirmed by Hezbollah’s leadership.

The strike resulted in at least six deaths and more than 90 injuries. The IDF reported that Ali Karaki, commander of Hezbollah’s southern front, was among the dead, along with other high-ranking commanders. This attack came right after Netanyahu’s speech at the UN, during which the Israeli prime minister reaffirmed Israel’s commitment to combating Hezbollah, emphasizing that Israel “yearns for peace.”

Israeli media have reported that Netanyahu ordered the airstrikes on Beirut to avoid launching a ground operation in southern Lebanon, although everything indicates that such an operation may still take place. The IDF has officially declared that Iranian ships will be intercepted off the Lebanese coast, that it will target new Hezbollah leaders, and will prevent any aircraft from Syria or Iran from landing in the Lebanese capital.

As for Iran, so far it has not undertaken any action, although two months have passed since the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. On September 21, Iran tested another missile outside Tehran, which was supposed to be a warning to Israel. However, Israel clearly wasn’t intimidated by these threats, since a week later it eliminated Nasrallah.

This time, Iran’s typically fierce rhetoric about avenging Israel was a lot more restrained. On one hand, Iran’s regional adversaries saw this as a shock that caught Tehran off guard, leaving it uncertain about how to react. This might explain reports about Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei being moved to a safer place due to fears that Israel could “go further.” 

On the other hand, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s recent remarks at the UN may reveal something about Iran’s current stance. During a meeting with US journalists, he hinted that Iran might not undertake military action if Israel took a similar step. This statement contrasts with Iran’s position expressed less than two months ago – at that time, following Haniyeh’s death, Iran vowed to retaliate in a harsh manner.

The turn towards a more conciliatory tone in New York was so noticeable that it prompted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to categorically deny rumors of Iran’s willingness to de-escalate relations with Israel. Khamenei, too, has refrained from his usual harsh criticism of Israel and its leaders. In a public address three days after the explosion of Hezbollah pagers, he briefly mentioned Lebanon but primarily called for Islamic nations to unite against Israel and sever all economic and political ties with it.

However, there is also a third possibility as to why Iran is silent: It is simply biding its time and preparing to strike unexpectedly, at the right moment. Iran believes that falling for Israel’s provocations is merely a trap, one from which Tehran may not get out alive and which may lead to its defeat.

The Israeli press reports that the IDF strike on Hezbollah headquarters also killed the commander of the southern front, Ali Karaki, and the commander of Quds Force in Syria and Lebanon, Abbas Nilforushan. The Quds Force is an elite military unit of the IRGC, responsible for conducting operations outside of Iran. By Saturday afternoon, September 28, Iranian state media confirmed that one of the deputy commanders of the IRGC was among those killed in the attack. In other words, tensions remain high, and it wouldn’t take much for the conflict to escalate into a full-blown war.

Read more

US officials have weighed in on the situation as well. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stated that Washington was “determined to prevent Iran from escalating the conflict in the Middle East.”

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed that Iran was being pulled into a larger war. He also noted that, apparently, Israel is trying to provoke Iran and Hezbollah in order to draw the US into the conflict, adding that Washington wants to preserve its monopoly over processes in the Middle East.

Clearly, Iran does not want war – not out of fear, but because it understands the consequences of such a step. Meanwhile, Netanyahu remains convinced of his invincibility and dismisses Iran as a “paper tiger” that he can easily handle. In reality, the situation is far more dangerous. The West wants to start another war by exploiting the current tensions, but intends to do so without getting directly involved, using Israel as its proxy.

However, Israeli leaders believe it’s not the West that is using them, but vice-versa – that they can draw the West into this conflict and force it to confront Iran, making a clever political move that would ultimately benefit Netanyahu. The Israeli prime minister isn’t about to stop and believes that nothing can stand in his way.

Israel believes that, by eliminating people like Nasrallah, Haniyeh, Fuad Shukr, and others, they can dismantle Hamas, Hezbollah, the Ansar Allah movement (Yemen’s Houthis), and similar militant groups. While it’s possible to eliminate individual militants, however, eliminating an entire ideology is another matter. 

Hezbollah is no longer just a group of armed individuals – it’s an ideology that will attract other militants who will remember these events and reignite the bloody conflict, causing people on both sides to die. Currently, Russia offers the most consistent, measured, and peace-seeking plan, urging the warring parties to come to the negotiating table based on the 1947 UN resolution advocating for the establishment of the Jewish and Arab states.

If this approach were adopted, 90% of the region’s current problems would vanish. However, the IDF continues its military operations, which are resulting in the deaths of countless innocent civilians, while Hezbollah vows to retaliate.

If Israel chooses the path of military escalation and draws Iran into a larger war, the consequences for the region would undoubtedly be catastrophic. A direct confrontation could spark a larger conflict involving many players, including Syria, Iraq, and even the Gulf states. Turkey and Pakistan probably wouldn’t stay on the sidelines either. The global energy market would be disrupted, and the security of vital maritime routes could be jeopardized, leading to soaring energy prices and overall economic instability.