We have reached two weeks since the July 31st assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, and Iran's anticipated major retaliation on Israel which its leaders have been threatening still hasn't come.
On Tuesday Tehran leaders appear to be walking back threats. They won't launch an attack based on key conditions, they say. Reuters and Times of Israel have cited three Iranian officials who said "An Iranian attack on Israel could be delayed amid hoped-for negotiations later this week for a hostage release and ceasefire deal in Gaza" which indicates that "a successful deal could hold Iran back from direct retaliation against Israel for alleged assassinating Hamas terror chief Ismail Haniyeh on its soil."
So now the pressure is on to at least proclaim the beginnings of a deal by week's end, which has already happened several times before, after which a ceasefire agreement ultimately collapses based on wrangling over details and timing.
Once again, Iran is signaling an indefinite timeline related to the threat of an attack: "The sources did not say how long Iran would allow for talks to progress before taking action," Reuters continues. And more:
Several reports in recent days indicated Israel believes Iran intends to attack before Thursday’s renewed talks for a deal. The new comments appeared to signal that the attack would only take place after those talks, and only if they failed to yield what Iran deems to be sufficient results.
As of Monday, Iran rejected calls from Group of Seven countries to "stand down" - saying that it has a "legal right" to counter attack given an official was brazenly assassinated on its soil.
Iran sees the leader of Hamas as essentially a politician and 'head of state' - while Israel and the West consider him a terrorist and legitimate target responsible for the Oct.7 mass killings of Israelis and foreigners.
Markets have generally reacted positively to what seems a 'climb down' - with oil prices pulling back from Monday's rally which was driven by heightened fears of broader regional war.
Still as of Tuesday morning, Iran's president has presented fresh warnings:
On Tuesday morning, Iranian state news agency Irna reported that Mr Pezeshkian had told Sir Keir that Western countries’ support for Israel had encouraged it to “continue atrocities” and threatened peace and security.
“Pezeshkian stated that from the point of view of the Islamic Republic of Iran, war in any part of the world is not in the interest of any country, emphasizing that a punitive response to an aggressor is a legal right of states and a way to stop crime and aggression,” Irna added.
Clearly there is a strong element of 'psychological warfare' motivating this, in order to keep Israeli society on edge, and increase Iran's leverage in their dealings with Western diplomats.
But the Israeli government itself is deeply divided on the prospect of a lasting ceasefire and deal with Hamas. Lately this has led to an open split between PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant.
