The assassination of Hezbollah’s Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah, has sent shockwaves through Tehran, raising concerns about Iran’s vulnerability and sparking an internal debate over how to respond to the Israeli strike.
Nino Orto reporting from Israel
The attack, seen as one of the most severe blows to Hezbollah and Iran’s regional influence, has left the Iranian leadership grappling with the decision to retaliate or to adopt a more cautious approach to avoid a broader conflict.
According to a report by The New York Times, the Iranian regime is split on how to respond on the killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah on Friday. Extremist factions within the government are demanding a swift and decisive strike against Israel to “renew deterrence” and demonstrate strength. These hardliners, led by figures like Saeed Jalili, a former presidential candidate, argue that Israel must be deterred before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu escalates the war beyond Hezbollah’s borders and potentially into Iran itself.
In contrast, Iran’s President Massoud Pazkhian, a moderate who has been pushing to reduce tensions with the West and alleviate the heavy sanctions crippling Iran’s economy, is calling for restraint. He warned during an emergency meeting of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council that a rash reaction could play directly into Netanyahu’s hands, potentially leading to a regional war that Iran is ill-prepared to face.
The meeting, held at Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s residence, reportedly revealed significant disagreements within the council. While conservative voices called for immediate retaliation, Pazkhian and other moderates urged caution, fearing the consequences of an all-out confrontation with Israel. Iranian sources familiar with the meeting told The Times that many within the regime fear that a direct Iranian strike on Israel could provoke devastating counterattacks on Iran’s critical infrastructure. Given the country’s current fragile economic state, such destruction could be catastrophic.
Khamenei himself struck a careful tone in his public statement following Nasrallah’s death. He emphasized that Hezbollah, not Iran, should take the lead in responding to the Israeli attack, suggesting that Tehran would play a supporting role. “All resistance forces in Iran stand by Hezbollah,” Khamenei said, adding that Hezbollah and its allies would shape the future of the region. Analysts believe this cautious stance reflects Iran’s uncertainty about how to effectively retaliate without risking further escalation.
The assassination has not only hurt Hezbollah’s leadership but also delivered a serious blow to Iran’s axis of influence in the region. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are now focused on restoring Hezbollah’s capabilities after the significant damage it has sustained in the recent Israeli strikes. Senior figures in the Revolutionary Guards told The Times that their priority is to help Hezbollah “get back on its feet,” rebuild its command structure, and choose a successor to Nasrallah. To this end, Iran plans to send a senior Quds Force officer to Beirut to assist in the rebuilding process.
As the regime weighs its next steps, one thing is clear: the assassination of Nasrallah has exposed Iran’s vulnerabilities and raised questions about its ability to maintain its grip on the region. The decision facing Tehran is not just about how to avenge Nasrallah’s death, but how to preserve its broader geopolitical strategy without triggering a catastrophic war.
For now, it appears that Iran is choosing self-preservation over escalation. However, the situation remains fluid, and the next moves by Hezbollah and its allies will likely determine whether the region is headed for further conflict or a period of uneasy restraint.
