HEZBOLLAH, Iran鈥檚 long-time strategic ally in Lebanon, has come under tremendous Israeli attacks in recent days. There are all-out war conditions against Hezbollah by Israel. Hezbollah is also retaliating with its capabilities. Amid speculation of another broader regional conflict, Iran remains silent, which is very unusual in its history of retaliation. It is now evident that there is a division within an Iranian conservative forum regarding punitive measures against Israeli atrocities. The global community, especially observers in the West, is closely watching Iran鈥檚 actions, questioning the motives behind its cautious approach.
Hezbollah, formed with the assistance of Iran鈥檚 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the 1980s, has been a cornerstone of Iran鈥檚 foreign policy in the Middle East. The group serves as a significant proxy force for Iran, particularly in its confrontation with Israel. Hezbollah鈥檚 transformation into a powerful military force was largely made possible through Iran鈥檚 financial and military support. Tehran has provided arms, money, and training to both Hezbollah and Hamas, allowing these groups to act as extensions of Iran鈥檚 influence and deterrents against Israel鈥檚 military strength.
Iran鈥檚 contributions to Hezbollah are not insignificant. In addition to arms and advanced military equipment, such as missiles and drones, Iran also provides substantial financial support. According to US reports, Iran contributes approximately USD 570 million annually to Hezbollah, bolstering its ability to operate independently and maintain pressure on Israel. This relationship has enabled Hezbollah to become one of the most potent non-state actors in the Middle East, often serving as Iran鈥檚 first line of defence in its broader regional agenda.
Despite the continued Israeli aggression against Hezbollah, Iran鈥檚 leadership has adopted a cautious stance, refraining from overt retaliatory actions. This is notable, given that Iran has historically been quick to respond to such provocations. Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian鈥檚 speech at the United Nations General Assembly exemplifies this new tone. During his address, Pezeshkian criticised Israel for its role in the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon but did so in a manner that was far less aggressive than his predecessors. Rather than issuing inflammatory rhetoric or threats, Pezeshkian emphasised Iran鈥檚 desire for peace, indicating that Tehran does not seek to escalate tensions further.
This conciliatory approach is a departure from previous Iranian presidents, who have typically taken a more hardline stance against Israel. Pezeshkian, who was elected president in July, has indicated that Iran is willing to resume negotiations with the signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal, highlighting his preference for diplomacy over military conflict. Other Iranian officials, including commanders within the IRGC, have also been unusually restrained in their rhetoric, opting for caution rather than retaliation against Israel.
The restrained response has not been without controversy in Iran, particularly among the country鈥檚 conservative factions. Hardliners within Iran, many of whom are closely aligned with supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are increasingly uncomfortable with the lack of action. They argue that Iran鈥檚 failure to respond decisively to Israeli attacks undermines its credibility, both domestically and internationally. In particular, they believe that not taking immediate action against Israel could weaken the IRGC鈥檚 standing among its supporters, especially as Hezbollah continues to face Israeli aggression.
While president Pezeshkian has sought to ease tensions with Israel, many conservatives view this as a betrayal of Iran鈥檚 long-standing commitment to supporting resistance movements like Hezbollah. The IRGC, which holds significant influence over Iran鈥檚 foreign policy decisions, has historically been at the forefront of supporting Hezbollah and other militant groups across the region. However, the leadership within the IRGC appears to be taking a more calculated approach, likely influenced by the broader strategic interests of Iran.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei holds the ultimate authority in Iran, particularly when it comes to matters of foreign policy and national security. His recent silence on the issue of retaliating against Israel is unusual and has sparked speculation about Iran鈥檚 broader strategy. Khamenei鈥檚 lack of direct threats against Israel in recent speeches suggests that Iran may be rethinking its approach to the ongoing conflict between Hezbollah and Israel.
This shift could be driven by several factors. One significant concern for Iran is the potential for a US military response if it were to escalate tensions with Israel. The United States has a strong military presence in the region and is a staunch ally of Israel. Any aggressive action by Iran could provoke a direct confrontation with US forces, a scenario that Iran would likely want to avoid given its weakened economy and the ongoing internal unrest within the country. US sanctions have crippled Iran鈥檚 economy, and the country is facing increasing pressure from both external and internal sources.
Additionally, Iran鈥檚 leadership may be considering the broader implications of getting involved in a direct conflict with Israel. Hezbollah has reportedly asked Iran to intervene militarily on its behalf, but Iranian officials have signalled that now may not be the right time. By avoiding direct military intervention, Iran may be seeking to preserve its resources and prevent a larger regional conflict that could further destabilise the country.
However, Iran鈥檚 decision to refrain from direct intervention could carry significant risks. Hezbollah is not the only militia group that relies on Iranian support. Throughout the region, Iran has built a network of proxy forces, from Syria to Yemen, that depend on Tehran for financial and military backing. If Iran is perceived as unwilling to support its allies during times of crisis, it could undermine the loyalty of these groups. This could weaken Iran鈥檚 influence across the Middle East and embolden its rivals, including Saudi Arabia and Israel, to push for further gains at Tehran鈥檚 expense.
Moreover, the lack of a strong Iranian response could embolden Israel to continue its aggressive tactics against Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed groups. Israel has made it clear that it will not hesitate to strike Hezbollah鈥檚 military infrastructure in Lebanon, and without a significant deterrent from Iran, these attacks may continue. This could lead to further destabilisation of the region, with Hezbollah potentially losing its ability to serve as an effective deterrent against Israel.
Iran鈥檚 current dilemma over whether to retaliate against Israel鈥檚 attacks on Hezbollah reflects a broader struggle within the country鈥檚 leadership. While hardliners push for a strong response to maintain Iran鈥檚 credibility and deter further Israeli aggression, more pragmatic elements within the government, including president Pezeshkian, are advocating for a cautious approach that prioritises diplomacy and avoids a larger conflict. Supreme Leader Khamenei鈥檚 silence on the issue suggests that Iran鈥檚 leadership is still weighing its options, balancing the need to support its allies with the risks of provoking a US military response.
As the situation continues to unfold, Iran鈥檚 next steps will be crucial in determining the future of the region鈥檚 geopolitical landscape. Whether Tehran ultimately decides to take a more aggressive stance or continues to prioritise restraint will have far-reaching consequences for both Hezbollah and the broader Middle East.
听
M A Hossain is political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh.