As violence continues to escalate between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran, a long-standing backer of the militant group, appears to be conspicuously absent from the latest flare-up. Israel has significantly intensified its military operations against Hezbollah, targeting positions in southern Lebanon and the eastern Bekaa Valley. While these developments have drawn the world’s attention, Iran’s uncharacteristic silence has sparked speculation about its broader strategic interests and intentions in the region.
Iran’s Calculated Absence
Political observers in Lebanon have noted that Iran, which has traditionally been vocal in supporting Hezbollah, has now adopted a more cautious stance. This apparent withdrawal from direct involvement in the latest confrontation has raised questions about Iran’s evolving priorities. One of the most striking indicators of this shift was Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s recent remarks, where he acknowledged that Tehran was making a “tactical retreat” in its regional activities. Specifically, he suggested that Iran was stepping back from retaliating against Israeli strikes on Iranian interests in Syria and elsewhere in the region.
Additionally, Iran seems to have quietly abandoned its plans for avenging the assassination of senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, who was killed in Tehran in July. Haniyeh’s death was initially viewed as a major blow to Iran’s standing with Palestinian factions, but the absence of retaliatory action from Tehran has fueled further speculation about a strategic shift in Iranian policy.
The timing of these developments coincides with significant diplomatic moves. On Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian announced that Iran was ready to engage in nuclear negotiations in New York, where world leaders were gathered for the United Nations General Assembly. This announcement, paired with Tehran’s muted response to the latest round of violence between Israel and Hezbollah, has led analysts to suggest that Iran may be prioritizing diplomacy over direct military engagement.
Divided Opinions Among Observers
The question of whether Iran’s actions signal an abandonment of Hezbollah or a temporary strategic withdrawal has divided analysts. Some argue that Iran is simply recalibrating its approach to focus on more pressing diplomatic concerns, particularly its nuclear negotiations with the West. Others believe that Tehran may be prepared to sacrifice its proxy militias, including Hezbollah, in exchange for political gains on the international stage.
Lebanese political expert Fares Soaid, head of the Saydet el-Jabal Gathering and a former member of parliament, expressed deep concerns about Iran’s shifting priorities. He noted that the current situation in Lebanon is eerily reminiscent of events in Gaza, where Iran similarly distanced itself from direct involvement while allowing its proxies to bear the brunt of the fighting with Israel.
“The coming days will reveal whether Iran is truly leading the ‘Resistance Axis’ against Israel or if it is allowing its allies, like Hezbollah, to fight while Tehran focuses on its negotiations with the United States,” Soaid said in an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat. He pointed out that Iran’s proxies across the region—whether in Lebanon, Yemen, or Iraq—have been left to fend for themselves in conflicts that may ultimately serve Tehran’s negotiating leverage with Washington.
Hezbollah: Left to Its Fate?
In Lebanon, there is a growing sense that Hezbollah, which has long relied on Iranian support, may now be fighting alone. The Lebanese people, many of whom have been critical of Hezbollah’s role in dragging the country into conflict with Israel, are increasingly questioning the group’s relationship with Tehran. Iran’s failure to respond to recent developments, including the Israeli attack on Hezbollah’s communications infrastructure and the assassination of senior commanders from Hezbollah’s elite Radwan unit, has reinforced the perception that Tehran has abandoned its Lebanese proxy.
Soaid, reflecting on Lebanon’s turbulent history, warned that Hezbollah’s current predicament mirrors past alliances with foreign powers that have ultimately led to disaster. He recalled how, in the 1970s, the Lebanese National Movement aligned itself with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and the Fatah movement, only to be betrayed when Syrian President Hafez al-Assad ordered the elimination of Fatah’s influence in Lebanon.
“Foreign powers use internal forces for their own purposes, not the other way around,” Soaid explained. “Hezbollah is following orders from Tehran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and it could be left to suffer the consequences if Iran decides that it no longer needs to support it.”
Iran’s Geopolitical Calculus
Ziad al-Sayegh, a prominent geopolitical expert, disagrees with the notion that Iran has completely abandoned Hezbollah. He argues that Iran’s silence should not be interpreted as a sign of weakness or disengagement, but rather as a strategic calculation. Iran’s deep ideological ties with Hezbollah, he noted, are not easily broken. According to Sayegh, Tehran’s decision to stay out of the direct confrontation may be driven by a desire to preserve its political capital as it navigates sensitive negotiations with the West.
“Iran and Hezbollah share an ideological bond that transcends temporary political shifts,” Sayegh told Asharq Al-Awsat. “It would be naive to believe that Iran is ready to walk away from Hezbollah. What we are witnessing is a strategic decision to avoid provoking a wider regional war while Iran focuses on securing its long-term interests.”
Sayegh also highlighted the complex dynamics between Iran and Western powers, particularly the United States. He suggested that Iran has likely weighed the costs of continued direct involvement in Lebanon’s conflict against the potential gains of securing concessions on its nuclear program. By refraining from retaliating against Israel, Tehran may be signaling its willingness to compromise in exchange for sanctions relief or other diplomatic incentives.
The broader question facing Lebanon, Hezbollah, and the region as a whole is how Iran’s evolving strategy will affect the balance of power in the Middle East. Iran’s decision to refrain from escalating the conflict with Israel may reflect a broader realignment of its priorities. As Tehran pursues rapprochement with the West, it could be recalculating its approach to regional conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
Sayegh warned that the West should not view Iran’s restraint as a sign of weakness or a reduction in its regional ambitions. He argued that Iran has long sought to expand its influence across the Middle East by supporting proxy militias, and that strategy is unlikely to change in the near term. However, he cautioned that Tehran’s decision-making is now being shaped by the complex calculus of balancing its domestic economic concerns with its regional and international ambitions.
A New Chapter in the Israel-Hezbollah Conflict?
As Hezbollah faces increasing pressure from Israeli airstrikes and ground operations, the absence of direct Iranian involvement has left the group in a precarious position. While Hezbollah remains a formidable force with a deep-rooted presence in Lebanon, its ability to sustain a prolonged conflict without significant external support is uncertain. The Lebanese people, many of whom have grown weary of Hezbollah’s role in provoking confrontations with Israel, are questioning whether the group’s alliance with Iran will ultimately prove to be more of a liability than an asset.
The coming weeks will likely reveal more about Iran’s true intentions. Whether Tehran is pursuing a tactical retreat or a more fundamental realignment of its regional strategy, the implications for Lebanon and the broader Middle East are profound. If Iran continues to prioritize diplomacy over military engagement, Hezbollah may find itself increasingly isolated on the battlefield, left to fight a war that Tehran no longer sees as essential to its interests.
In the words of Soaid, “Hezbollah must now confront the reality that it may no longer be able to rely on Iran’s support in the way it once did. The question is whether the group can adapt to this new reality, or whether it will be left to its fate as Tehran focuses on securing its future through diplomacy.”
