As Israel continues its conflict with Hezbollah, which is funded and equipped by Iran, Tehran's notable silence has drawn attention. Despite being officially at war with Hezbollah, Israel has not yet been able to convince the international community to mediate a ceasefire following the recent death of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
Hezbollah, a Shia group recognized as a terrorist organization by several countries including the U.S. and Germany, is at the center of the ongoing tensions. Israel has hinted at a desire to launch ground operations into Lebanon, while Iran's muted response raises questions about its commitment to its ally.
Burcu Özçelik, a senior researcher at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), suggests that Iran appears reluctant to directly defend Hezbollah, as such a move could lead to direct military confrontation with Israel. Similarly, military analyst Fabian Hinz from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) believes that a genuine military intervention by Iran is unlikely.
Hamidreza Azizi from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) noted that Iranian leaders do not view the current conflict as an existential threat to Hezbollah. He emphasized that Hezbollah retains the capability to defend itself and continue the conflict as it stands, while also pointing out practical obstacles due to Iran's geographical distance.
In April, Iran launched a comprehensive attack on Israel using drones and missiles, but most were intercepted before entering Israeli airspace, resulting in minimal damage. Azizi stated that Israel's recent actions, including the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, highlight Iran's intelligence vulnerabilities in the region.
Hinz remarked that these developments could weaken Iran's deterrence and reliability among regional actors, suggesting that direct involvement in the conflict could pose greater risks for Tehran. Iranian Vice President Javad Zarif stated earlier this week that they believe Hezbollah is capable of defending itself, indicating a connection to internal political balances within Iran.
Hinz reiterated that the survival of the Iranian regime is the highest priority, suggesting that the Shia Islam can only exist if the Tehran regime remains intact. Therefore, Iran is unlikely to risk real danger.
Burcu Özçelik pointed out that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkiyan expressed a conciliatory message regarding the resumption of nuclear negotiations at the UN General Assembly in New York. However, Özçelik warned that if Hezbollah loses its military presence and attack capabilities, it could leave Iran vulnerable.
One of the strategic consequences of Israel's attacks on Lebanon could be Iran's potential loss of deterrence against Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities, as well as its oil refineries and other critical infrastructure, which would further impact Iran's already struggling economy under sanctions.
Özçelik suggested that Iran may choose to buy time to restore Hezbollah's strategic capabilities. Hinz noted that Iran has repeatedly relied on non-state actors and proxy forces to attack Israel, and may expedite arms deliveries to Hezbollah and send military advisors.
Besides Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iranian-affiliated groups like the Houthis in Yemen and Shia militias in Iraq are also active. Özçelik concluded that Iran has thus far avoided direct confrontation with Israel, as unlike Palestinians and Lebanese, Iranians do not experience the consequences of violence directly.