Iran International
Iran's ultra-hardliners say the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh can only be avenged by a major missile attack on Israel, but others are cautioning against a response that may lead to a full-fledged war.
The international deputy of the Iranian Judiciary Kazem Gharibabadi in an interview with Lebanese Al-Mayadeen TV called for a response even “more decisive” than “Operation True Promise”, the missile and drone attack on Israel in April. Iran launched around 350 missiles and drones at Israel retaliation to an attack on the its embassy in Damascus.
“The aggressor should be punished, …, a punishment that conveys the message of deterrence and authority to the enemy,” the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) linked Javan newspaper demanded in an editorial Tuesday.
Ayatollah Ali Saeedi, head of the Ideological-Political Bureau of the Supreme Leader’s Office, argued that in the “fight against the infidels,” there are only three options: war, surrender, or resistance. However, he stated that war against Israel and its allies is not "expedient," and surrender is unacceptable, leaving "active resistance" as the only viable path.
Although not made directly in the context of the current circumstances, Saeedi’s remarks Monday could indicate certain hesitations in the political establishment about a move that could be the start of a full-on war.
Supporters of ultra-hardliner politicians like Saeed Jalili accuse those advocating for self-restraint of cowardice. Their criticism is directed at 'reformist' media and politicians, such as Abbas Abdi and Sadegh Zibakalam, who have been calling for caution and a careful consideration of all options before making a decision that could potentially lead to war.
“A direct war with Israel is suicide,” Zibakalam said Monday in an interview with AbdiMedia.
“There are no chances of us negotiating with the United States and Israel. The world is prepared for the emergence of Mahdi and this big war after Mr. Haniyeh’s martyrdom shall be a turning point for the world,” an ultra-hardliner posted on X last week.
Some conservative politicians and media also appear to disdain rash calls to a war of the kind ultra-hardliners are demanding.
In an interview with the reformist Etemad newspaper Tuesday, Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, a conservative former chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, criticized hardliners for pushing hard for quick “revenge” as a matter of honor.
He alleged that infiltrators in Iran's intelligence agencies, who he blamed for the security failures that led to the incident, may also express radical views to push the country to war.
In an opinion piece in the conservative Khorasan newspaper Tuesday, foreign policy researcher Bardia Attaran contended that Iran's response should not involve missile or drone operations launched from inside Iranian borders.
The issue of missiles will turn into the focus of international pressure on Iran if it conveys the impression that missiles are the only means available to the country or results in a focus on newer technologies to neutralize these missiles, Attaran argued.
A response to the assassination, which he said is “inevitable”, would be the responsibility of the “region and Axis of Resistance” and can be in the form of an assassination at the same level as Israel’s assassination of the Hamas leader in Tel Aviv to make the city “unsafe”.
Speaking to Radio Farda, the Persian service of RFE/RL, on Monday, Sedigheh Vasmaghi, a prominent dissident female Islamic scholar, urged for the Islamic Republic’s self-restraint and warned about its involvement in any wars.
“Taking any steps, even small, towards war can be dangerous for the country and the nation because the other side will take the next step and we don't know what they are aiming at,” she said and argued that the Iranian people should not be made to pay the price for the intelligence and security shortcomings of the Islamic Republic which led to Haniyeh’s assassination in Tehran.
