bdellium-admin 
Israeli Special Operations Veteran Aaron Cohen Discusses How Soon Iran Could Attack Israel After the Assassinations of Top Hamas and Hezbollah Leaders on ‘Hannity’
In a recent appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Israeli special operations veteran Aaron Cohen discussed the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, particularly in the wake of the targeted assassinations of top leaders within Hamas and Hezbollah. Cohen, who has extensive experience in counterterrorism and special operations, provided his insights into how Israel’s actions are perceived by Iran and how this might influence the likelihood and timing of a retaliatory attack. Cohen’s comments come at a time when the Middle East is teetering on the edge of a broader conflict, with Iran’s regional ambitions increasingly clashing with Israel’s national security interests.
This article delves into Cohen’s analysis, exploring the strategic implications of Israel’s recent military actions, Iran’s potential responses, and the broader geopolitical context that shapes the ongoing confrontation between these two adversaries.
The Assassinations: A Strategic Blow to Hamas and Hezbollah
Targeted Assassinations of Top Leaders
Israel has a long history of employing targeted assassinations as a means of neutralizing high-value targets within terrorist organizations. In recent months, Israel has intensified its campaign against Hamas and Hezbollah, carrying out precision strikes that have eliminated several of the groups’ top commanders. These operations are part of a broader strategy to weaken these organizations’ leadership and disrupt their operational capabilities.
The assassinations of key figures within Hamas and Hezbollah are significant for several reasons. First, they create a leadership vacuum that is difficult to fill, particularly in organizations where leadership roles require a combination of military expertise, ideological commitment, and political acumen. Second, these strikes send a clear message to other members of these organizations: that they are vulnerable to Israeli intelligence and military power, regardless of where they are located.
Impact on Hamas and Hezbollah
The loss of senior leaders is a major setback for both Hamas and Hezbollah, which rely on their leadership to coordinate operations, manage relationships with external allies (such as Iran), and maintain organizational cohesion. For Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, the assassinations undermine its ability to plan and execute attacks against Israel. Hezbollah, which operates primarily in Lebanon, faces similar challenges, particularly in terms of coordinating its military activities with those of its Iranian backers.
However, while the assassinations have undoubtedly weakened these organizations, they are unlikely to be completely neutralized. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have deep networks of operatives and supporters, and they have shown a capacity to adapt to setbacks in the past. Nevertheless, the targeted killings represent a significant escalation in Israel’s efforts to confront these groups and signal its willingness to take bold actions to protect its national security.
Iran’s Strategic Calculations: Fear and Retaliation
Cohen’s Analysis: Why Iran Fears Israel
In his discussion on “Hannity,” Aaron Cohen emphasized that Iran is acutely aware of Israel’s military capabilities and the effectiveness of its intelligence operations. According to Cohen, this awareness is a key factor in Iran’s decision-making process, particularly when it comes to direct confrontations with Israel. “Iran is scared of Israel,” Cohen asserted, pointing to Israel’s ability to conduct highly effective operations against Iranian proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah as evidence of its military superiority.
Cohen argued that Israel’s recent assassinations serve as a stark reminder to Iran of what it could face in a direct conflict. Israel’s precision, technological edge, and willingness to take decisive action have made it a formidable adversary in the eyes of the Iranian leadership. This fear, Cohen suggested, acts as a deterrent, making Iran more cautious in its approach to Israel.
Potential Iranian Responses
Despite its fear of Israel’s military prowess, Iran remains committed to its strategic goals in the region, which include expanding its influence through proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah and maintaining a credible deterrent against Israel. In the wake of the recent assassinations, Iran may feel compelled to respond, both to reassure its allies and to maintain its image as a regional power.
Iran has several options for retaliation, each with its own risks and potential consequences:
- Direct Military Action: Iran could launch a direct military strike against Israel, possibly using its missile arsenal or deploying its naval forces in the Persian Gulf. However, such a move would likely provoke a massive Israeli response and could lead to a broader regional conflict, something that Iran may wish to avoid.
- Proxy Attacks: Iran could encourage or assist Hezbollah or other allied militias to carry out attacks against Israeli targets. This approach allows Iran to retaliate indirectly, reducing the risk of a direct confrontation. However, Israel’s readiness to strike back at Hezbollah makes this option risky as well.
- Cyberattacks: Iran has a history of using cyber warfare as a tool of retaliation. A cyberattack against Israeli infrastructure or military systems could cause significant disruption without provoking an immediate military response. However, Israel’s advanced cyber defenses and its own offensive cyber capabilities could make this a less attractive option.
- Asymmetric Warfare: Iran might choose to engage in asymmetric warfare, supporting smaller-scale terrorist attacks against Israeli interests abroad or within Israel itself. This approach would allow Iran to strike back while maintaining plausible deniability.
Timing and Calculations
Cohen suggested that while Iran is likely to consider all these options, the timing of any retaliatory action will be carefully calculated. Iran’s leadership is aware of the potential consequences of a miscalculation, particularly if it provokes a full-scale Israeli response. As a result, Iran may choose to bide its time, waiting for a moment when it can retaliate in a way that minimizes the risk to itself while still sending a message of strength.
At the same time, Cohen warned that Iran’s strategic patience should not be mistaken for passivity. The regime in Tehran is deeply committed to its goals and will likely seek to retaliate at a time and place of its choosing. For Israel, this means maintaining a high level of vigilance and readiness, as the threat of Iranian retaliation remains ever-present.
The Geopolitical Context: A Region on Edge
The Broader Middle East Tensions
The tension between Israel and Iran is part of a larger, more complex geopolitical struggle that encompasses much of the Middle East. Iran’s ambitions to expand its influence have put it at odds not only with Israel but also with several Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These countries, along with Israel, view Iran’s activities with increasing alarm, particularly its support for proxy groups and its nuclear program.
The Abraham Accords, which saw several Arab states normalize relations with Israel, have further isolated Iran in the region and strengthened the emerging coalition against it. This realignment has created a new dynamic in the Middle East, with Israel and its new allies working more closely to counter Iranian influence.
U.S. Involvement and the Global Implications
The United States plays a critical role in this regional power struggle, both as a close ally of Israel and as a key player in the international community’s efforts to manage Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The Biden administration has sought to balance its support for Israel with diplomatic efforts to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.
However, the recent escalation of tensions, including the targeted assassinations discussed by Cohen, complicates these diplomatic efforts. The U.S. is likely to face increasing pressure from Israel to take a harder line against Iran, particularly if Iran responds with violence. At the same time, Washington will need to navigate its relations with other regional allies and manage the broader international implications of any potential conflict.
The Risk of Escalation
One of the most significant risks in the current situation is the potential for escalation. While both Israel and Iran have reasons to avoid a full-scale war, the possibility of a miscalculation or unintended escalation cannot be ruled out. The region is fraught with complex alliances, rivalries, and historical grievances, any of which could spark a broader conflict if not carefully managed.
Cohen’s analysis highlights the importance of deterrence in this volatile environment. Israel’s military capabilities, combined with its willingness to take decisive action, serve as a powerful deterrent against Iranian aggression. However, maintaining this deterrence requires constant vigilance and a readiness to act swiftly if necessary.
Conclusion
Aaron Cohen’s analysis on “Hannity” offers a sobering look at the current state of tensions between Israel and Iran. While Israel’s recent actions against Hamas and Hezbollah have demonstrated its military capabilities and resolve, they have also heightened the risk of retaliation from Iran. Cohen’s assertion that “Iran is scared of Israel” underscores the effectiveness of Israel’s deterrence strategy, but it also highlights the potential for future conflict if Iran decides to respond.
As the Middle East remains on edge, the actions of Israel, Iran, and their respective allies will continue to shape the region’s geopolitical landscape. The possibility of escalation remains a significant concern, and the international community will need to remain engaged to prevent a broader conflict. For Israel, the challenge will be to balance its need for security with the complex realities of a region where the lines between war and peace are increasingly blurred.
