°®Âþµº

The front pages of Iranian newspapers on the third day of Israel's deadly and indiscriminate airstrikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon offered a stark contrast to what typically follows such incidents. Even the most conservative publications refrained from using images of civilian casualties or the destruction left in the wake of Israel's indiscriminate attacks.

Rather than focusing on the losses suffered by Hezbollah, Iran's main ally in the region, pro-reformist and moderate dailies centred their attention on President Masoud Pezeshkian's speech at the UN, highlighting his message of de-escalation to the world.

The daily, whose editor-in-chief is appointed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also avoided images of the war's casualties. Instead, it quoted Khamenei as saying, "The final victor of the war will be Hezbollah and the axis of resistance," using the term commonly employed by the Iranian establishment to refer to its military allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

Other conservative publications, such as Javan, funded by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hamshahri, Iran, and Jame Jam similarly focused on Khamenei's assurance of eventual victory, without delving into the human toll of the conflict.

While these publications serve as a barometer, offering subtle insight into the power dynamics within Iran, domestic analysts also emphasised the significant costs of engaging in a war with Israel. They suggested that Iran is unlikely to respond quickly to the destructive attack on Hezbollah.

Nosratollah Tajik, Iran’s former ambassador to Jordan, is one of the most high-ranking analysts who ruled out the possibility of Iran entering this war, stating that if Iran intended to do so, it would have acted much earlier.

"Many might suggest that Iran should immediately engage in a direct military conflict with Israel. However, this perspective is misguided and not necessarily the right course of action," he was as saying.

Tajik emphasised that such a scenario contradicts Iran's long-standing strategy of arming and training its military allies.

"If Iran sought direct conflict to secure its interests or create deterrents in the Middle East, it wouldn't have invested so heavily in supporting resistance forces to achieve its objectives," he added.

According to the former diplomat, Iran would prefer to mobilise the international community against Israel.

Other foreign policy experts, such as Mohammad Khajooei, have also advised the Iranian establishment to avoid military confrontation with Israel.

Khajooei, an Iranian expert on the Middle East, an op-ed under the title, "Iran must not enter a military conflict with Israel."

He argued that Iran must approach the situation pragmatically, rather than being driven by excitement or idealism.

"It must be stated plainly: Iran should not only avoid direct military conflict with Israel, but also work immediately to ensure Hezbollah's dignified withdrawal from the recent war, preventing further damage. Iran must not allow Lebanon to become another Gaza, nor let Hezbollah suffer the same fate as Hamas," he wrote.

Another prominent Iranian foreign policy expert, Hassan Lasjerdi, also stated that a military response is not always the most effective option and that Iran would likely explore other political and economic strategies.

He emphasised that Tehran aims to keep Tel Aviv in suspense, adding, "Iran strives to keep the Zionist regime anticipating its next move in the political arena, ensuring they always expect calculated actions from our side."

Even conservative analysts, such as Hossein Raviravan, believe that Tehran has no appetite for entering a direct war with Israel following Tel Aviv's strikes on Lebanon.

In an interview with the website, Raviravan stated that as long as Hezbollah can defend itself, Iran would refrain from entering the conflict.

When asked if this battle expands, will the Islamic Republic [of Iran] also be involved, Raviravan emphasised, "I think it is very unlikely."