The recent assassination in Tehran of Ismail Haniyeh, a senior Hamas leader, has brought to light the complex and often opaque relationships that Iran maintains with non-state actors throughout the Middle East.
Unlike previous incidents, where Iran has swiftly retaliated for such actions, this situation is marked by an unusual silence.
Weeks have passed, and Iran has yet to respond, leaving analysts speculating about whether, how, or when retaliation might occur. This calculated inaction suggests that Iran’s next move may be influenced by broader geopolitical developments, particularly the ongoing efforts for a ceasefire in Gaza. If an agreement is reached, it seems increasingly possible that Iran may opt not to retaliate at all — a surprising departure from its historical approach to proxy warfare.
Iran’s cooperation with non-state allies can be understood as part of a broader global pattern of proxy warfare, where states extend their influence and pursue strategic objectives through indirect means. Like many other nations, Iran uses non-state allies to engage in conflicts without the risks associated with direct military involvement. This tactic allows Iran to apply pressure on its adversaries while minimizing the possibility of international backlash.
These alliances are often based on shared ideological or religious beliefs, particularly Iran’s promotion of Shia Islam. This ideological alignment mirrors other states’ support for non-state actors rooted in common political or religious objectives, such as Saudi Arabia’s backing of Sunni groups or U.S. support for democratic movements. In these relationships, Iran provides its allies with weapons, training and logistical support, enhancing their ability to engage in asymmetric tactics such as guerrilla warfare and cyber-attacks.
This dynamic of state support for non-state actors is not unique to Iran but is a common feature of modern conflict, where weaker states leverage unconventional means to challenge stronger military powers.
However, there are distinct characteristics that set Iran’s strategy apart. Unlike many other nations, Iran uses religious ideology not only as a tool of influence but as a unifying force that transcends national borders. By fostering a transnational Shia identity, Iran extends its reach through groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and various Shia militias in Iraq. This religious solidarity serves as a powerful means of mobilizing support and exerting influence across the region.
Moreover, Iran’s alliances with non-state actors are not merely temporary or transactional. These relationships are deeply institutionalized and have evolved over decades, transforming groups like Hezbollah into major political and military forces with enduring ties to the Iranian state. This long-term commitment contrasts with other state-non-state partnerships, which are often more fleeting and based on immediate strategic interests.
Iran has also blurred the lines between state and non-state actors in ways that few other countries have. By integrating these groups into its broader state military strategy, particularly through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran has created a hybrid model of influence that complicates efforts to counter its actions. This blending of state and non-state forces enhances Iran’s ability to project power indirectly, making it difficult for adversaries to identify clear targets for retaliation.
Another distinctive aspect of Iran’s strategy is its support for non-state actors in the digital realm. Beyond traditional military aid, Iran has equipped its proxies with cyber warfare capabilities, giving them the tools to challenge adversaries in both the physical and virtual worlds. This technological sophistication adds a modern dimension to Iran’s influence, allowing it to disrupt its enemies on multiple fronts.
Iran’s network of non-state actors spans the Middle East, creating a regional web of influence often referred to as the “Shia Crescent.” This network enables Iran to exert control across multiple countries simultaneously, making it difficult for opponents to counter its influence effectively. By decentralizing conflict and empowering independent yet coordinated non-state allies, Iran has developed a distributed warfare strategy that places pressure on adversaries from multiple directions.
The killing of Ismail Haniyeh, however, has introduced an element of uncertainty into this well-oiled machine of proxy warfare. Iran’s decision not to respond immediately suggests a more calculated approach than in the past, one that may be influenced by broader geopolitical calculations. As negotiations for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas continue, Iran may be weighing the costs and benefits of retaliation more carefully.
Historically, Iran has positioned itself as a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, often using its influence over groups like Hamas to challenge Israel. But if a diplomatic resolution to the conflict appears within reach, Iran may see more value in holding back rather than risking further destabilization through military action.
This restraint, if it continues, could signal a significant shift in Iran’s broader strategy. It suggests that Iran may be moving away from immediate military responses in favor of a more long-term, calculated approach that prioritizes its broader geopolitical goals over short-term gains. The silence following Haniyeh’s assassination may indicate that Iran is willing to forgo retaliation if it believes peace in Gaza could ultimately serve its interests better than continued conflict.
Iran’s cooperation with non-state allies is a complex and multifaceted strategy that combines elements of proxy warfare, religious ideology and long-term institutionalization. The killing of Ismail Haniyeh highlights the delicate balance Iran must maintain between its commitments to these non-state actors and its broader geopolitical ambitions.
As Iran’s next steps remain uncertain, it is clear that any decision to retaliate—or not—will be deeply intertwined with the larger dynamics at play in the Middle East. Whether Iran ultimately chooses to respond militarily or hold back, its actions will continue to shape the region’s geopolitical landscape for years to come.
Pari Esfandiari is the co-founder and president at the Global TechnoPolitics Forum, a member of the at-large advisory committee at ICANN representing the European region, and a member of APCO Worldwide’s advisory board.