If anybody has learned how to “take the win” in the Middle East since Oct. 7, it has been Iran.
More than a month has passed since Iranian officials promised “bloodlust” and revenge against Israel for the killing of Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. And while the threats continue, no attack has materialized.
It may be tempting to think the increased U.S. military presence in the region is the reason behind this delay. But success rather than fear is the more likely driver of Iranian restraint in this instance. And that’s a problem.
Politically, the Islamic Republic is benefiting from a contradiction at the heart of how the Biden administration sees the Middle East. Since Oct. 7, U.S. officials have stressed that Washington seeks both “de-escalation” and “deterrence.” But conceptually, to bolster deterrence, a willingness to escalate must be perceived. Conversely, to foster de-escalation, one might inadvertently create conditions in the mind of the adversary that erode deterrence.
By preying on America’s fears of a wider war in the Middle East, Tehran hopes that when push comes to shove, de-escalation will be prioritized over deterrence. Tehran aims to enlist Washington and the broader West in its bid to foil Jerusalem’s war aims, one of which is to destroy Hamas.
To that end, America’s renewed diplomatic push for a ceasefire to include pressure on Israel cannot be divorced from Tehran’s threat of retaliation. In leaks to Reuters, senior Iranian officials have driven the point home that Iran would hold off on retribution in exchange for a ceasefire. The catch? Any ceasefire agreement would necessarily leave Hamas — or what’s left of it — in place as a negotiating partner.
This would achieve Iran’s post-Oct. 7 regional aim of preventing Hamas from being eliminated from its constellation of terrorist proxies known as the “Axis of Resistance.” It might also serve to politically invalidate Israel’s use of force against elements of this axis, because it would have fallen short against its weakest member.
Worse, it would vindicate for the Islamic Republic the efficacy of threatening to use its ballistic missile arsenal — the largest in the region — to fulfill its political demands. The consequences of the low bar for the use of overt and direct military force by Tehran have already been on full display. In the first four months of 2024, the Islamic Republic attacked two nuclear-armed nations, Israel and Pakistan, with ballistic missiles from its own territory and lived to tell the tale.
Although no ceasefire has been reached, Washington remains committed to the cause. Even as news broke of the murder of more Israeli hostages by Hamas — to include a young Israeli-American — President Biden continued to heap blame on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the lack of a hostage deal and ceasefire agreement.
Threading these developments through the last 11 months, Tehran need not introduce more military force that could lead to an escalation spiral and threaten its hold on power. It is already reaping the political dividends of a crisis it chose to commence by supporting Hamas’s attack against Israel on Oct. 7.
That attack set back Saudi-Israel normalization, re-shifted the regional agenda away from Iran — to include countering Iran’s escalating nuclear program — and risks magnifying the chasm between the Arab street and Arab states across much of the Middle East. Taken together, these have long-term implications for the pro-American regional order that will require more, not less, time, attention and political capital to address. All of these forces are in short supply in Washington, particularly in as the presidential election nears.
On the proxy front, terrorist groups are increasingly reliant on patronage and direction from Tehran, which has used them to create a “ring of fire” against the Jewish state with minimal cost to Iran. The Houthis for example, which are the newest entrants into this Iran-backed network, have managed to threaten Red Sea traffic using Iranian weapons with little danger to their hold on power in Yemen and with the propaganda boon of “clear failure” by U.S. and U.K. efforts against them, in the reported words of Gen. Michael Kurilla of U.S. Central Command.
As the anniversary of Hamas’s attack nears, rather than international support rallying around the victim, Israel has even become the target of increasing legal and political pressure from the West. This even includes a pause in U.K. arms exports.
Surveying the chessboard, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — who declared in 2015 that Israel will not live to see the year 2040 — is unlikely to abandon course. Iranian officials mean it when they chant “death to Israel.”
With the Islamic Republic literally getting away with murder, a victory lap now is nothing if not premature.
Behnam Ben Taleblu is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank in Washington, D.C.
