Israel, Iran, and approximately 40,000 American soldiers stationed in the Middle East are currently in a state of heightened alert, anxiously awaiting Tehran’s response—along with that of its allies—to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, in Tehran on July 31st. This followed the assassination of Fuad Shukr, a field commander in Hezbollah, in Lebanon just a day earlier.
Iran and its proxies have justified their delayed response to Israel by claiming it is part of their “psychological warfare” strategy. This narrative has been widely promoted, dominating Friday sermons across various Iranian cities, reflecting the stance of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The Iranian newspaper “Kayhan,” which is close to Khamenei, asserted that “Iran is waging a parallel psychological war to change the enemy’s calculations and create instability in public opinion.”
In line with this, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah stated on August 6, 2024, that the delay in responding to Israeli assassinations is “part of the punishment,” emphasizing that “the response is coming, whether alone or with allies.” Additionally, on August 12th, Ali Daamouch, the Deputy Head of Hezbollah’s Executive Council, claimed that part of the response to Shukr’s assassination had been executed through “psychological warfare,” which has left Israel “in a state of exhaustion, paralysis, fear, panic, and terror.” Conversely, Israel believes that its threats have so far prevented Tehran from responding.
Mutual Pressures:
The reciprocal statements between Iran and its allies, on one side, and Israel and the United States, on the other, outline the contours and dimensions of a “psychological war” that is being employed to achieve each side’s military and political objectives. Tehran, through Khamenei, has committed itself to responding to Haniyeh’s assassination. Meanwhile, Tel Aviv is experiencing “deep anxiety,” not just within its security and military circles but also among ordinary citizens who are constantly anticipating the sound of sirens signaling them to seek shelter in bunkers. According to Yossi Yehoshua, a military affairs analyst for the Israeli newspaper “Yedioth Ahronoth,” “Iran has achieved its goal in psychological warfare by spreading an atmosphere of panic in Israel. The Israeli public is now preoccupied with stockpiling food, fuel, and generators, fearing prolonged power outages if Iran retaliates and the war escalates.”
Despite Israel’s advanced satellite and logistical support, it remains uncertain about the nature, scale, or location of Iran’s potential response. Will it be a direct strike on Israeli soil like the April 13 attack? Or could Tehran target Israeli interests abroad, such as embassies and intelligence centers close to Iran? To what extent might Tehran leave the response to its allies in Lebanon and Yemen? All these uncertainties create immense psychological strain on both the Israeli public and military.
Iran’s psychological warfare against Israel is further compounded by the potential synchronization of a response by the so-called “Axis of Resistance.” Will each party within this Iranian axis strike on its own, or will Israel, for the first time in its history, face a “three-pronged attack”—from Iran from the east or northeast, Hezbollah from the north, and the Houthis from the south?
However, Israel is not the only one suffering from psychological warfare; Iran and its regional wings are also under unprecedented psychological pressure, especially with increasing doubts inside and outside Iran about the capability and success of any Iranian response, even if it surpasses the April 13 attack. These skeptics argue that the delay in Iran’s response has allowed Israel and the United States to bolster their preparedness for any forthcoming retaliation. Meanwhile, Israel is capitalizing on Iran’s delayed response, portraying it as hesitation and fear, and asserting that Tel Aviv is well-prepared to face this challenge, thereby conducting its own “intense psychological warfare” supported by its Western allies, particularly the United States.
The most significant psychological pressure on Iran’s leadership comes from its own allies, who argue that Haniyeh was assassinated on Iranian soil, and that Tehran has a duty to avenge his death. Hassan Nasrallah, on August 1st, described the assassination in Tehran as a “dishonor to Iran,” not just a breach of its sovereignty. This increases the psychological burden on Iranian decision-makers to mount a response, the consequences of which are uncertain for Tehran and the region. Will Tehran retaliate against Tel Aviv? Could this lead to a broader regional war? Or will Tehran refrain from responding, risking the loss of support from its allies abroad and further encouraging domestic opposition?
Complex Calculations:
Within Iran and among its allies, there is a saying that “Iranians bleed others slowly,” a metaphor for Iran’s ability to conduct “psychological warfare” against its adversaries, underscoring Tehran’s strategy of patience and prolonged waiting to achieve its goals. More than three weeks have passed since the assassinations of Haniyeh in Tehran and Fuad Shukr in southern Beirut, and neither Iran, Hezbollah, nor the Houthis have retaliated against Israel. This delay is viewed by Iran and its regional allies as “psychological torment” and “slow bleeding” for Israel. The key elements and calculations of this psychological warfare can be understood through the following indicators:
Ambiguity of the Iranian Response: Ambiguity is the primary feature of Iran and Hezbollah’s stance on responding to the assassinations of Haniyeh and Shukr. Tehran has left its adversary, Tel Aviv, under the fire of “psychological warfare,” uncertain whether it will respond or not. Although Iranian figures like Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard have emphasized the necessity of a strong response to Haniyeh’s assassination, the delay, from their perspective, may have intensified the “psychological warfare” that Israel is suffering on both civilian and military levels. Militarily, all Israeli army units are on high alert around the clock, a state difficult to maintain for long periods. Civilians in Israel are also affected, with many airlines halting flights to Tel Aviv and Israelis constantly preparing to retreat to bunkers, imposing a harsh lifestyle with significant economic and psychological costs.
A Double-Edged Sword: The implications of “psychological warfare” are not limited to Israel; Iran is currently enduring severe psychological warfare manifesting in several ways:
Proving Credibility: Iran and Hezbollah need to prove their credibility to the supporters of the so-called “Axis of Resistance” in responding to the assassinations of Haniyeh and Shukr. Failure to respond would open the door to spreading the opposing narrative that Tehran views its proxies merely as tools for advancing its own agenda.
Restoring Deterrence: The assassinations of Haniyeh and Shukr without retaliation would exacerbate the “psychological warfare” against Tehran and Hezbollah. Tehran and Hezbollah are now striving to restore the previous deterrence parameters because the killing of Shukr in southern Beirut and Haniyeh within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s barracks in northern Tehran represent breaches of the former deterrence boundaries. To regain these boundaries, Tehran and Hezbollah must deliver a significant and direct response to Israel.
Level of Response: While Iran’s April 13 attack on Israel involved more than 300 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones in the first direct Iranian assault on Israeli territory, the lack of casualties led some to label the response a “theatrical” gesture, possibly coordinated with Tel Aviv. This places an additional burden on Iran and its regional allies to execute a painful response that resonates strongly within the region and beyond.
Israeli Threats: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that Israel will retaliate to any Iranian strike with twice the force, boasting that Israel’s reach is extensive. This rhetoric forms a key component of the “psychological warfare” Tel Aviv, with Washington’s backing, is waging against Tehran. The recent deployment of a second U.S. aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, and its accompanying destroyers to the Middle East on August 21st, along with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s statement that Iran will suffer if it retaliates against Israel, exemplifies the “psychological warfare” Iran has faced since July 31st.
All signs suggest that Iran is working tirelessly, not just to respond to Haniyeh’s assassination, but also to prepare for Israel’s likely retaliation. This has led to unprecedented pressures to ready air defenses, protect nuclear facilities, and conduct training exercises in anticipation of an Israeli response. A clear indication of such pressures and “psychological warfare” was the Revolutionary Guard’s military drills on August 11th near Iran’s western border with Iraq, anticipating that any Israeli attack, whether by missiles or aircraft, could come from Iran’s western borders.
War Expansion: Most major wars in history have been the result of miscalculations, with the involved parties not originally intending to engage in long and violent conflicts. The political and military environment in the region exerts unprecedented pressure on Iran to avoid escalating its confrontation with Israel into a broader regional war. Thus, Tehran and its allies have repeatedly declared their lack of desire for an expanded and widespread regional conflict. Iranian President Masoud Bezashkian, in his early days in office, faces the pressure of potential regional war escalation with the United States and Israel, a form of “psychological warfare” that Tehran and its regional proxies are keenly aware of.
Psychological Warfare Against Washington: Approximately 40,000 American troops are stationed in the Middle East, possibly experiencing genuine “psychological warfare” since the Iranian leadership announced its intent to respond to Haniyeh’s assassination. These troops are vulnerable to attacks from Iran’s allies, especially in Syria and Iraq. The January 8, 2020, attack on the Ain al-Asad airbase following Washington’s assassination of General Qasem Soleimani still resonates within U.S. military circles. Some Washington decision-makers fear a potential Iranian response to Haniyeh’s assassination in the Gulf or Iraq, or even an attack on Israel with missiles or drones that might mistakenly target U.S. bases and facilities.
In conclusion, it’s impossible to predict how the “psychological warfare” between Iran and Israel will unfold or escalate. Both sides are intensifying their efforts to emerge victorious in this warfare, both psychologically and militarily, aiming to weaken their adversary’s morale and combat spirit. However, this warfare has reached unprecedented levels, and if it spirals out of control, it could have dire consequences, leading to a new chapter in the Middle East’s conflicts.
