Will Iran respond to the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah

Iran’s leadership issued carefully crafted statements following Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, with conservatives and moderates bitterly divided on how to respond to the killing.

Shock waves from Friday’s air strike that killed Nasrallah reverberated across Iran over the course of the weekend, with ordinary Iranians fearing an all-out war between the Lebanese movement and Israel that could engulf the Islamic Republic.

Initially, Iranian news websites were hesitant to report on the assassination, with many having to turn to the Telegram messaging app, known for its lax content moderation policies, to find out the latest information on leader’s fate.

Then, early on Saturday, Hezbollah confirmed that its powerful and long-serving leader was killed in Friday’s strikes on Beirut.

Both Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian issued carefully worded statements over the killing, with neither indicating whether Tehran would directly become involved in the conflict.

Hezbollah began its campaign of cross-border strikes against Israel a day after Hamas launched its unprecedented attack on Israel last October. Hamas officials have said they launched that attack in response to Israel’s provocative tours of Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque complex.

The Israeli military said last week that it was preparing for a possible occupation of southern Lebanon, and had sent two brigades to northern Israel to train for a potential ground invasion.

In a message posted on his official website, hours after Israel said Nasrallah had been killed, Khamanei said: “The blows from the resistance front against the worn and declining body of the Zionist regime, with the help and power of God, will be even more crushing.”

“It is obligatory for all Muslims to support the people of Lebanon and the proud Hezbollah with their resources and to assist them in confronting the usurping, oppressive, and malicious regime,” Khamenei added.

Pezeshkian echoed this sentiment, saying: “We have learned that command belongs to God. The divine path is never without a commander and leader, and this earth will be inherited by the righteous servants of God.”

Ali Zol Elm, a senior official in Iran’s leadership office, remarked that the latter part of the Supreme Leader’s statement served as a general Islamic ruling that has existed throughout history, rather than a new and pronounced statement indicating a new phase in the war.

The majority of Muslim scholars have emphasised that if any segment of the Islamic community is oppressed, it is the obligation of other Muslims to defend and support them to the best of their ability, Zol Elm said.

“This obligation is significant enough to create a deterrent effect. As long as these malicious and brutal attacks persist, it is undoubtedly a religious duty for all capable individuals to express and declare their support through various means.

“There seems to be no ambiguity in the Leader’s statement in this regard; therefore, a true Muslim and an authentic Islamic community will certainly be sensitive to these issues,” he added.

Conservatives blame reformists

Since Nasrallah’s killing, Iran appears to have witnessed extreme political polarisation, with some hardliners blaming the reformist president and his administration for the escalation of the conflict.

Many have argued that Pezeshkian demonstrated weakness during this week’s UN General Assembly in New York, which apparently emboldened Israel to assassinate Nasrallah.

Pezeshkian struck a moderate tone during his first address to the world body, saying Iran wanted to hold more talks with the west and other global powers on its nuclear programme and US sanctions.

In a direct attack on the president, Amir Hossein Sabeti, a hardline mamber of parliament, accused him of being “deceived by America” and claimed the president had facilitated Nasrallah’s assassination by disobeying the Supreme Leader’s orders and halting a retaliation plan following the killing of Ismail Haniyeh.

Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, was assassinated on 31 July whilst visiting the Iranian capital Tehran for Pezeshkian’s inauguration ceremony.

The killing was seen as a humiliating security failure for the Islamic Republic, which has yet to directly respond to the killing.

Another hardline activist criticised former foreign minister and current Vice President Javad Zarif, writing on X that “with the continuation of current policies, Javad Zarif will push the war into Iran’s borders.”

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a conservative analyst affiliated with influential institutions stated that “those who have advised against being drawn into a war must now confront a critical question: Where is the limit to Israel’s aggression?”

“If Israel continues its campaign of assassinations, how far will it go? Everyone is stunned by Sayyed’s assassination, and this approach is now under scrutiny. Even I was previously against military involvement, but Iran’s likely response will certainly be serious,” the analyst said.

Such opinions didn’t appear to be a minority-held view.

A former conservative diplomat in the region told MEE on condition of anonymity that “following the Supreme Leader’s message calling for support for Palestinian fighters, the path forward has been clearly delineated. Iran will undoubtedly respond according to this directive, and the form of this response will become evident in the coming days.”

“This is a complex, hybrid war, and Iran will address it with precise and intelligent strategies,” the source added.

A former conservative MP, who also spoke to MEE on condition of anonymity due to sensitivities surrounding the issue, said that “Israel has become a rabid dog that must be controlled.”

“If Iran is to respond to Israel, it must consider pursuing an atomic bomb. If Iran and Israel wish to ignite the region, then Iran should work towards developing nuclear capabilities,” the former official added.

Iran ‘reassessing its approach’

Several other voices have also urged Iran to take a stern response in the wake of the killing.

Ayatollah Hassan Akhtari, the former Iranian ambassador to Syria, announced that registration for sending volunteer forces to Lebanon would begin in the coming days.

“The Zionist regime and the US are attempting to create a divide between the resistance forces and Iran, claiming that Iran does not support them,” he said.

“This opportunity is now available, especially since access to Lebanon and the Golan region in Syria has been secured, allowing for the deployment of forces,” he added.

Diako Hosseini, a foreign policy analyst, tweeted: “Netanyahu has convinced many Iranians that deterrence based on the doctrine of asymmetric warfare and shifting the front line to the Mediterranean is ineffective. 

“Today, reinforcing ‘strategic depth’ through the promotion of classical military power and nuclear capabilities has gained more support among the Iranian populace.”

A political analyst told MEE that had this assassination occurred a decade ago, it would have elicited widespread outrage amongst Iranians.

He noted that the government of former president Ebrahim Raisi engaged in social crackdowns, humiliated its citizens and women, engaged in political repression, and the country’s economic isolation widened divisions within society. Still, however, Hezbollah retained a strong support base in Tehran, he said.

Conversely, a moderate foreign policy analyst who regularly contributes to reformist media told MEE that “Iran is attempting to revive Hezbollah, but so far, there have been no indications of a military response. 

“The experiences of the assassinations of Haniyeh in Tehran and Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah demonstrate that Iran is reassessing its approach,” the analyst said.

“This reassessment does not imply a complete abandonment of the military option; rather, it indicates a growing realisation that a more comprehensive perspective on deterrence is needed,” they added.

Another moderate foreign policy analyst told MEE that “despite the significant pressure from radicals, including state television and fundamentalists, on Iranian leadership to respond aggressively to Israel, I predict that Iran’s behaviour will become more calculated, and it presents an opportunity to improve its economic conditions. 

“Following the policies of the current government, there is hope that paradigm shifts will occur, prioritising Iran’s development. Prolonged conflicts cause the most considerable damage to Iran’s development; without progress, Iran’s position will weaken in the future.”