New York Times: Iran's revenge options test its fledgling leadership

In the shadow of a brazen assassination, Iran's new president faces a critical decision that could reshape the Middle East's volatile landscape.

Hours after Masoud Pezeshkian's swearing-in as Iran's president, an explosion rocked Tehran, killing Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh. The attack, presumed to be orchestrated by Israel, has thrust the fledgling administration into a high-stakes game of geopolitical chess.

"This attack was a huge slap in the face for Iran's status in the region," says Ali Akbar Behmanesh, a prominent Iranian politician. The assassination not only eliminated a key Hamas figure but also exposed glaring vulnerabilities in Iran's security apparatus, particularly embarrassing given the presence of dignitaries from over 80 nations at Pezeshkian's inauguration.

Now, Iran's leadership faces a crucial decision: how to respond without igniting a full-scale regional conflict. The options range from direct missile strikes against Israel to proxy attacks via allies like Hezbollah, each carrying its own set of risks and potential for escalation.

Looming over these considerations is the nuclear question. Iran has long toed the line of weapons development, and this crisis could push it over the edge. "Where we are now is not a good place," U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently warned, noting Iran's proximity to nuclear breakout capability.

For Pezeshkian, elected on promises of social liberalization and economic relief, this crisis presents a stark departure from his campaign platform. "Pezeshkian ran on a pledge to rebalance Iran's foreign relations," notes Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group.

However, the new president's influence over military decisions remains uncertain, with ultimate authority resting with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has called for Iran to launch a direct attack on Israel, rather than revenge via his proxies.

* The New York Times contributed to this article.