IN its impatience to see the Iranian retaliation quickly over and done with, Israel has publicly said that it will conduct a preemptive strike on Iran if it dilly dallies with the retaliation.

This is a foolish move that will only delay the retaliation further as the Iranians will take their time to be ever alert in beefing up the defence of their homeland against this pre-emptive strike.

It will just put Iran actively in both offensive and defensive modes – offensive in terms of continuing refining and calibrating a response that will make Israel regretful, but which will not lead to bleeding wounds from Iran, and defensive in terms of enhancing its air defence systems strong enough that it is impregnable to potential Israel’s pre-emptive or counter retaliation strikes. 

In this regard, a helping hand from Russia came.

On August 5, former Russian defence minister and currently Secretary of Russia’s National Security Council Sergei Shoigu was in Tehran to confer with Rear Admiral Ali Akbar Ahmadian, a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander who serves as Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

Shoigu also met with President Masoud Pezeshkian and the chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Major General Mohammad Bagheri.

Analysts noted that soon after Shoigu’s visit, a stream of Russian aircraft landed in Iran, reportedly carrying offensive and defensive military hardware, including the game-changing Murmansk-BN system, capable of jamming and scrambling all sorts of radio signals, GPS, communications, satellites, and electronic systems up to 5,000km away. 

According to veteran journalist Pepe Escobar, this is the ultimate nightmare for Israel and its Nato helpers. If deployed by Iran, the Murmansk-BN electronic warfare system can literally fry the whole Israeli grid, which is only 2,000km away, targeting military bases and also the electric grid.

But why would Russia do all these?

Firstly, simply because Russia and Iran have a comprehensive strategic partnership including in the military field.

Perhaps, Shoigu’s visit to Tehran to meet General Bagheri, after all, was to exactly round up the finer points of their comprehensive strategic partnership. 

Secondly, a few months back, President Vladimir Putin has already warned the US and the West that if they continue to arm Ukraine with weaponries and ammunitions in the Ukraine war, Russia will do the same in arming countries that are the enemies of the US and the West, in line with the adage that “the enemies of my enemy are my friends”.

Putin’s recent visit to North Korea can be seen in this light, so too is the naval blockade of Israel by the Yemen Ansar Allah.

This naval blockade which is aimed at pressuring for an end to the genocide in Gaza has led to ships linked to Israel, as well as US and UK military vessels, being targeted in the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean and the Arabian Sea.

In the wake of the blockade, Ansar Allah has stated that it is working with BRICS countries and has reached an understanding regarding its efforts, indicating that Russia and China are assisting Yemen in becoming a regional maritime power.

Advanced capabilities, such as hypersonic missiles and air and undersea drones, have been used in these attacks, resulting in a significant reduction in ship traffic through the Suez Canal, which may suggest the involvement of great powers in arming Yemen.

Bringing BRICS into the picture, as mentioned by Ansar Allah, the relevant question to be asked is what would be the role of China in all these?

We must remember that China and Iran have also forged strategic partnership. Moreover China, Iran and Russia had held joint military exercises since 2019.

It is in this context and it’s quite telling that during his meeting with Shoigu, General Bagheri said: “We will welcome the tripartite cooperation of Iran, Russia, and China.”

As Pepe Escobar puts it, the Israeli provocations, especially the assassination of Haniyeh, were a direct affront to three top BRICS members: Iran, Russia, and China.

So, the response to Israel implies a concerted articulation of the trio, deriving from its interlocked comprehensive strategic partnerships.

Earlier on August 5, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi took a crucial phone call from Iranian Acting Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri Kani, during which he adamantly supported all of Tehran’s efforts to ensure regional peace and stability.

It also signals Chinese support for an Iranian reaction to Israel, especially considering that the assassination of Haniyeh was seen in Beijing as an unforgivable slap to its considerable diplomatic efforts only a few days after Haniyeh, alongside other Palestinian political representatives, signed the Beijing Declaration.

This declaration, among others, has called for the formation of a unity government among the various Palestinian factions to rule Gaza immediately after the war.

As much as Russia and China are supporting Palestine and Iran on several levels, it’s inevitable that the focus of the US forever wars is now turned against all of them.

Escalation is rampant across the board – in Ukraine, Israel, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, plus colour revolutions from Bangladesh (successful) to Southeast Asia (aborted).

Which brings us to the key drama in Tehran: how to carefully calibrate a response that will make Israel regretful, but not lead to bleeding wounds from Iran to Russia and China. 

The overarching clash is inevitable since Putin himself revealed it in stark terms when he said, “Any peace talks with Ukraine are impossible as long as it conducts strikes on civilian populations and threatens nuclear power plants.”

The same applies to Israel in Gaza. “Peace talks” – or ceasefire negotiations – are impossible while Gaza and sovereign nations such as Syria, Iraq, and Yemen are being shelled at will.

There’s only one way to deal with it: militarily, with smart force.

Iran, in consultation with strategic partners Russia and China, may be trying to find a third way.

And this involves dragging the waiting game, the psychological warfare, and the unbearable strategic ambiguity of when retaliation will take place, thus forcing Israeli settlers to stew in their underground bunkers until the whole, across-the-board, coordinated strategy is in place to deliver a killer blow.

It is in this sense Escobar says that Tehran may be pushing Sun Tzu’s Art of War to the limit.

To summarise, Iran has three ways to respond to the transgression of its sovereignty by Israel in assassinating Haniyeh on its soil.

The first way is to forget about the retaliation in light of what the US intelligence is asserting that Iran is having a second thought being fearful of the US military build-up in the Mediterranean and its warning of serious consequences for Iran if it goes ahead with the retaliation.

But this is the most unlikely outcome as Iran has emphasised it will fight to the last man in order to preserve its sovereignty, and it has the military capacities and capabilities to respond to any attacks by the US.

In fact when three Washington’s vassals in Europe – the UK, France and Germany – issued a statement begging Iran to not respond, Iranian diplomacy swiftly replied to the vassals, stressing its “recognized right” to defend national sovereignty and create deterrence against Israel, the real source of terrorism in West Asia. And crucially, emphasizing they “do not seek permission from anyone” to exercise it.

The heart of the matter predictably escapes western logic: If Washington had forced a Gaza ceasefire last year, the risk of an apocalyptic war convulsing West Asia would have been avoided.

Instead, the US approved a further US$20 billion weapons package to Tel Aviv, showing exactly how committed the Americans are to securing a permanent ceasefire.

The second way is to teach the occupation state an epic, unforgettable lesson with a retaliation featuring a combination of the Murmansk-BN system and new Iranian hypersonic missiles, and perhaps some extra Russian hypersonic surprises.

But this would involve a regional conflagration that in turn would lead to a third world war, although some analysts still think that this would be the answer without necessarily igniting into a regional war that would lead to WW3.

The third way is mentioned by Escobar where Iran will push Sun Tzu’s Art of War to the limit, thus forcing Israeli settlers and the Israeli cabinet to stew in their underground bunkers until the whole, across-the-board, coordinated strategy is in place to deliver a killer blow.

So it looks like Iran is in this retaliation game for the long haul. But how long is long in the long haul?

Come to think of it, it would not really be very long if one takes into account the prophetic words of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq in 1983, as quoted in the book of another veteran journalist John Helmer, The Jackals’ Wedding: American Power, Arab Revolt:

“The Israelis cannot withstand one year of fighting in a war.”

So look out for the sequel to this article on or after October 7, 2024 on the Iranian retaliation, and perhaps who knows the end of the Israeli genocide in Gaza too.

Really it’s not a long wait. It’s just about one and a half months from today. – August 24, 2024.

* Jamari Mohtar is the editor of Let’s Talk!, an e-newsletter on current affairs.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.