Multiple Nations Reach Out to Iran to Reconsider Counterstrike on Israel

As the world watches and waits for Iran’s leaders declared intent to respond to Israel’s brutal assassination of former Hamas political head Ismail Haniyeh with a “decisive” military attack, time is running out to change their minds.

Whatever may happen, the most accurate estimate confirmed by western intelligence sources says that response will happen starting sometime between August 12 and August 13, just two days from now. That is the time of the Israeli holiday of Tisha B’Av, an annual remembrance of the destruction of the first two temples established by the Israeli people. The honoring of that date goes back to Babylonian times, long before the Israeli people migrated to their current homeland following treaty arrangements at the end of World War II.

The latest push to encourage Iran to change its plans comes this time from, of all sources, the United States, which seems to believe it might have some leverage left with the Tehranian government. That is perhaps because its new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, was elected on a campaign pledging a more moderate approach and promising more outreach to nations such as the United States which Iran has been at diplomatic odds with – and subject to crippling sanctions from -- for some time.

All that changed quickly last week, as within hours of Pezeshkian’s inauguration Israel assassinated Ismail Haniyeh in his residence in Tehran. He stayed there while in attendance at the inauguration.

Following Haniyeh’s murder, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei aggressed his nation and the world, promised “a harsh punishment” for “the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime [having] martyred our dear guest in our house and made us bereaved.”

Shortly after, Pezeshkian declared that Iran would “defend its territorial integrity, dignity, honor, and pride, and will make the terrorist occupiers regret their cowardly act”.

Even though Iran has given no signs of backing down from its pledge of violent reprisal for Haniyeh’s death, that has not stopped Secretary of State Antony Blinken of following Joe Biden’s directives to attempt to defuse the expected coming Iranian airstrikes on Israel.

Blinken’s team issued a statement on his behalf yesterday that it has warned both Iran and Israel that the Middle East conflict between them cannot be allowed to escalate further.

“Further attacks only raise the risk of dangerous outcomes that no one can predict, and no one can fully control,” Blinken said.

“We’ve been engaged in intense diplomacy with allies and partners, communicating that message directly to Iran. We’ve communicated that message directly to Israel,” the State Department head continued.

Blinken’s comments came out yesterday, the day after National Security Adviser John Kirby spoke to reporters supporting what appears to be an orchestrated aligned White House position.

“We’re working really, really hard, with intense diplomacy, to try to avoid an escalation,” Kirby told the group.

Another surprising attempt at influencing the government of Iran came from a surprising source:  Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Putin, a strong ally of Iran for most of the time he has held his position of president, delivered his message to the new Iranian president during a visit on August 5 by Putin’s former defense secretary Sergei Shoigu. Shoigu currently holds the position of Secretary of the Russian National Security Council.

Shoigu is said to have asked Iranian officials to do everything in their power to avoid mass civilian casualties in any assault they may be considering. Since rumors which may have been genuine intelligence leaks indicated Iran might be targeting large population centers such as Israel’s capital city of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, its main business center. Bypassing targets where large numbers of Israeli civilians live would minimize the number of dead but is hard to believe that would be enough to minimize the chances that Israel would strike back harder in response to even that modified tactical strategy.

If anything, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised a “disproportionate” response to whatever Iran chooses to do to his country.

President Emmanuel Macron of France also stepped directly into the diplomatic discussions with Iran this week. In a phone conversation on August 7, Macron urged Iranian President Pezeshkian not to attack at all.

Not only did the conversation fail in its intended purpose, Pezeshkian is said to have used the opportunity to help Macron understand Iran’s need to respond to Israel’s criminal action in killing Haniyeh, especially after Israel had previously carried out other assassinations of several Iranian military leaders in Damascus, Syria, in early April. When Macron responded that Iran had the power to deescalate matters in the Middle East, the new Iranian president countered with that if France, the U.S. and other Western powers were serious about this, they would "immediately stop selling weapons" to Netanyahu and "compel the country to stop its genocide and attacks on Gaza".

Another place one might have expected some pressures to be place on Iran was at a special emergency session of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a bloc of 57 Islamic nations, held in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on April 9. That also did not work out as expected.

During the meeting, Iran’s representative first reasserted its intent to attack Israel, which runs diametrically opposite to multiple reports that Iran might keep its weapons in place for now. It used much of its public speaking time to plead its case and seek understanding from those in this critically important alliance as to why it must proceed with its plans.

Some had also expected the OIC to issue a statement following the meeting that expressed consideration of Iran’s position while still urging it to avoid any immediate military confrontation with Israel. That also did not happen.

Instead, the OIC said it "strongly condemns the assassination" of Haniyeh, while also holding Israel “fully responsible” for the action. The closest it came to encouraging restraint was a demand for “immediate and effective intervention" regarding by the United Nations regarding Haniyeh’s death.

The OIC meeting may have in fact helped solidify a stance among the group announced previously by some of its members, before the August 7 meeting took place. That happened when Jordan and Saudi Arabia announced earlier this week that they will not allow their airspace to be used by fighter jets or missiles sent by any countries, whether from Iran or, more importantly, from Israel and the United States. Jordan, whose air force supported the United States in shooting down some of the drones and missiles launched by Iran in April as part of its response to Israel’s killings and destruction of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, is now hinting it may go as far as not coming to the aid of Israel and the United States if Iran attacks this time. Saudi Arabia has said much of the same in private.

Egypt, also present at the conference, was even more clear about its position if Iran attacks Israel. After all Israel has done in the genocidal war in Gaza and in its recent string of cross-border assassinations over the last several weeks, the Cairo government has now officially refused to “take part in a military axis that would participate in repelling” any Iranian drones or missiles on their way to Israel.

Why this is so relevant to the current situation is that many military experts believe that Israel could not have as successfully rebuffed the relatively mild Iranian assault on Israel on April 13 in reaction to the Damascus bombing by Israeli Defense Forces, without the help of allies like Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

But even as the United States proclaims it is ready to defend Israel at all costs, unless some of the U.S.-led extensive of a peace olive branch to Iran somehow succeed against all odds, the U.S. could end up being at even higher risk itself if and when Iran does attack. It and its other forces in the Middle East would automatically become viable targets for Iranian forces.

There is still an option which the United States could consider in its objective of convincing Iran to pull back from the brink of what could quickly deteriorate into a much bigger war. That would be for the U.S. to cut off all future weapons sales to Israel for the indefinite future.

For so many reasons, including that this is an election year in the United States, that unfortunately will not happen.