Despite the series of strikes suffered by Hezbollah in Lebanon, the latest of which was the killing of its Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah, Iran ruled out on Monday that it had any intention of sending armed men to support it, as it said through its Foreign Ministry spokesman, Nasser Kanaani, that it “does not have any intention of sending armed men to support it.” Any proxy forces in the region.”
The Iranian position of not “sending forces,” according to Kanaani, is based on the idea that the governments of Lebanon and Hamas “have the capacity and strength necessary to confront” Israel, but as experts and observers explain to the “Al-Hurra” website, the reasons are related to larger dimensions, topped by “survival instincts.”
Compared to other agents, Western reports have always described Hezbollah as…“Iranian crown jewel”. Although Tehran has other arms in the region, it has not reached the level reached by the Lebanese party and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, who was assassinated on Friday in an Israeli strike along with other senior leaders.
Report: This is how Israeli spies infiltrated the Hezbollah group
A special report by the British newspaper “Financial Times” explained that Israel succeeded in carrying out precise assassination operations targeting senior leaders in the Lebanese Hezbollah militia thanks to obtaining high-quality intelligence information.
Statements by Israeli officials currently indicate that their campaign against Iran’s proxy in the region (Hezbollah) will continue, and its new details are likely to be reflected in the next stage in ground incursions.
While Hezbollah, classified as a terrorist organization in the United States, threatens to repel the new stages of the campaign against it, the point at which Tehran stands raises several questions that are not only related to the reasons for Tehran ruling out the intention of sending gunmen to support it, but also to the reports highlighted by Western media.
Quotes American “Time” magazineOn Monday, a source described as “informed” said that Iran is “working to transfer thousands of militants to the border areas between Syria and Lebanon.”
The source added to the magazine, “During the past two months, several thousand militants have already left Iraq for Syria,” pointing out that this means that Tehran is “preparing to strengthen its deterrence force.”
This came after a report I published Bloomberg Agency It also indicated that Iran is trying to “transfer thousands of fighters to the border areas between Lebanon and Syria.”
“Two reasons for distancing oneself”
Arman Mahmoudian, a research fellow at the Institute for Global and National Security and a lecturer at the University of South Florida, believes that “Iran has been avoiding sending forces to participate directly in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah for two main reasons.”
He explains to Al-Hurra website the first reason by saying that “Iran is likely to realize that engaging in a direct conflict with Israel will force the West, especially the United States, to intervene.”
This would lead to a highly unequal conflict, in which Iran has little chance of success, according to the researcher.
Strikes targeting its nuclear sites… a “Western warning” to Iran
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz said that Western countries communicating with Iran warned it that its intervention in the ongoing war between Israel and Hezbollah might push Israel to launch strikes on strategic sites inside Iran, including facilities related to its nuclear program and the oil industry, according to what two informed diplomats told the newspaper.
He adds that the second reason is based on the factor of “Iran’s home front.”
Iran is fully aware of the fragility of its economy and ongoing internal unrest, according to Mahmoudian.
On the basis of this, he believes that “engaging in a foreign war under these circumstances is risky, because it may lead to aggravation of instability at home.”
However, on the other hand, the researcher on Iranian affairs, Saeed Sharoudi, says that Iran’s talk about its lack of intention to send forces to support Hezbollah does not mean “disengagement from the Lebanese party and the axis of resistance.”
He added to Al-Hurra website that what Iran means “is the presence of peoples subjected to Israeli occupation and able to stand against it and against the countries that support Israel, represented by the United States and Britain.”
The Israeli strike campaign resulted in the displacement of more than a million people inside Lebanon, some of whom headed to Syria with tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, in addition to the killing of hundreds of people.
Meanwhile, before and after the assassination of Nasrallah, Israel was able to kill the leaders of the first ranks of Hezbollah, most notably Fouad Shukr and Ibrahim Aqeel.
“survival instincts”
International relations researcher Mahmoud Alloush points out that there is a state of “inconsistency in the Iranian position regarding the ongoing war in southern Lebanon.”
In his interview with Al-Hurra website, Alloush links this situation to several reasons, the first of which is the lack of harmony in the position between the hard-line conservatives within the regime in Tehran and the reformists and political movement that seeks to limit the repercussions of the war and its risks on Iran.
The second reason goes towards “Iran’s concern that further public involvement in the war would pose an existential threat against it.”
The researcher believes that the Iranians “are trying to distance themselves as much as possible.”
On the other hand, he believes that the third reason behind the currently prevailing Iranian position towards Hezbollah may be related to an attempt by Tehran to send conflicting messages to Israel and the United States, “in order to raise the costs of the Israeli push in Lebanon on both sides.”
Researcher Mahmoudian does not rule out the existence of “some disagreement within the Iranian senior leadership over how to deal with the current conflict between Hezbollah and Israel.”
But he believes that “those who call for direct intervention – whether military or diplomatic – constitute a minority at the present time.”
“Given the Islamic Republic’s survival instincts,” in the words of the researcher, it is unlikely that “it will push a large percentage of its military, intelligence, or diplomatic leadership into a war with Israel that would threaten the very existence of the regime.”
“In a difficult situation”
Since the start of the war in Gaza after the October 7 attack launched by the Hamas movement, which is classified as a terrorist organization in the United States, no direct involvement of Iran in the ongoing war has been recorded so far.
However, it registered a position when it announced the bombing of Israel with drones and missiles, in response to the bombing of its embassies in the Syrian capital, Damascus.
Although the political leader of Hamas was killed on its territory, it has not implemented any response yet, but it is still threatening it.
Researcher Alloush explains, “Iran is in a very difficult situation and all of its options involve high risks.”
While it does not want to get involved in the war, it also does not want to see Hezbollah exposed to an existential threat.
It is clear, according to Alo Sh.’s view, that “the objectives of the Israeli war in Lebanon go beyond the issue of restoring the population of the northern region and removing the threat from Hezbollah to establishing a new situation in the conflict with the latter.”
The researcher believes that “Benjamin Netanyahu (Israeli Prime Minister) views this moment as a valuable opportunity to greatly undermine Hezbollah’s military capacity or think about destroying it and changing the political situation in Lebanon.”
“Everyone in Iran now agrees to raise the level of support to the highest levels for Hezbollah, after the killing of Nasrallah. This includes the financial, political, military and technological aspects,” according to the Iranian researcher, Sharoudi.
He believes that “this support that Iran will provide will change many equations in favor of Hezbollah, and increase Israeli weakness.”
“You will not be directly involved.”
Lebanese Hezbollah is not only Iran’s agent in the region, but rather it is “part of Iran’s defense doctrine,” as Alloush, a researcher in international relations, explains.
Therefore, Alloush says, “Any change to it will have major repercussions on Iran, at the level of its role in Lebanon, its presence in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, its presence in the dynamics of regional politics, and at the level of direct Iranian security and Iranian defense doctrine.”
The researcher believes that Iran will be directly involved in the war.
He believes that “it may be betting on a long-term war and ground fighting between Hezbollah and Israel that will lead to the latter not achieving its goals.”
However, it should be noted that “the current situation is high risk for Tehran and Hezbollah.”
The war is also far from the equation of Israel and the Lebanese party, and takes on the character of forming a new Middle East,” according to Alloush, and as Netanyahu recently announced.
For his part, Iranian researcher Sharoudi believes that “Israel is not the party that will form the new Middle East, but rather the axis of resistance,” he says.
He explains that “what Iran cannot imagine is that Hezbollah will be weakened,” and that “what is heard on the lips of Iranian officials is diplomatic talk and does not reflect the reality existing in Tehran.”
