2024-08-22 10:49:34
Iran is now facing serious challenges to its traditional strategy of using proxy groups to achieve geopolitical goals. Today, Tehran faces a dilemma: how to maintain influence in the region and avoid direct military confrontation when its allies such as Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iraqi militias are increasingly inclined to escalate the conflict.
The Wall Street Journal writes about this.
In recent decades, Iran has worked hard to build a coalition of ideologically aligned militias spread across the Middle East. This strategy has allowed Tehran to wage a hybrid war through its proxies while avoiding direct confrontation with its adversaries, including Israel, the United States, and other Western powers. Iran supports its proxies by providing them with cheap but effective weapons, such as missiles and drones, that can be used to attack key targets.
But in recent months, this long-standing tactic has begun to fray. As the Wall Street Journal notes, the assassination of a key Hamas terrorist figure, Ismail Haniyeh, was a major turning point. It shook the Iranian elite because it raised the risk of direct attacks on Iranian territory. Tehran, despite its attempts to modernize, remains vulnerable to attack because of its outdated military, much of which was acquired in the 1970s, before the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
Iran, aware of the limitations of its air defense, has focused on developing attack drones and missiles that can hit targets in Israel. However, these systems, while having offensive capabilities, are completely useless for defending its own airspace. This creates a serious dilemma for the Iranian leadership: how to repel possible attacks from Israel and the United States that could follow if Tehran’s proxy groups begin to act aggressively.
At the same time, tensions are rising among the proxy groups themselves. Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iraqi Shiite militias, inspired by Iranian support, are increasingly eager to take action. Their growing frustration with Tehran’s indecisiveness could cause these groups to spiral out of control. If that happens, the consequences could be catastrophic, especially given that they are targeting not only Israeli forces but also American troops stationed in the region.
Syria stands out in this context. President Bashar al-Assad has made it clear to Iran that he is not interested in engaging in a large-scale war, especially given the economic crisis and popular discontent caused by years of sanctions. Syria, in deep crisis, is not ready for another war, especially since there are still about 1,000 American troops in the eastern part of the country. These forces play an important role in preventing the resurgence of ISIS, supporting Washington’s Kurdish allies, and containing the influence of Iran and Russia.
In early 2024, amid rising tensions, the United States began to ramp up its resources in the region. Additional troops and equipment were sent to Syria, signaling that Washington was taking the potential escalation of the conflict seriously. The American presence in Syria serves many purposes, including protecting its interests and allies, and limiting Iranian influence.
Iran thus finds itself in a difficult situation. On the one hand, it is seeking to avoid a direct conflict that could be devastating to its territory and regime. On the other hand, its proxies, growing impatient, could provoke the very war that Tehran is trying to avoid. The coming months will show more clearly Iran’s intentions and ability to restrain its allies from acting rashly. But if Iran fails to control its “watchdogs,” the consequences could be dire for both the region and Iran itself.
Earlier, “Cursor” wrote about why Iran did not attack Israel.
Analysts talk about Iran’s fears that prevent it from striking Israel in response to Haniyeh’s assassination