Israel and Iran walk on a tightrope

Iran and Israel have been engaged for many years in a confrontation constantly capable of developing into open conflict. Instrumentalizing a particular branch of Islam, which denigrates nationalism in favor of an Islamic state, the Iranian theocratic regime partly defines its divine mission as requiring the elimination of Israel. To do this, Iran has created and armed proxies across the region, from Gaza to Yemen, including Lebanon and Syria.

The terrorist attack carried out by Hamas on October 7, 2023 marked a painful turning point for Israel. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hailed Hamas’s successful operation as a sign of the imminent end of the “Zionist entity,” with other religious leaders going so far as to proclaim that the success heralded the return of the twelfth imam, a divine figure supposed to make Islam triumph over the world. The brutal attack on civilians shattered Israel’s aura of invulnerability, and Israel’s months-long campaign in Gaza became a propaganda boon for the Iranian regime.

Iran’s religious leaders, however, do not want all-out war, especially after the heavy losses suffered by their proxies. Since the US assassination of Kassem Soleimani in 2020, Iran has seen Israel eliminate more Iranian officials, as well as the top leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Many made possible by daring acts of espionage and assassination, these strikes demonstrate the extent to which Mossad has managed to infiltrate the ranks of Iran and its proxies. The “axis of resistance” that Iran spent several decades building, spending several billion dollars on it, now faces unprecedented challenges, weakening the regime’s ability to project force in the face of to Israel.

In this broader context, Iran’s religious leaders find themselves in a difficult position. Long-standing international sanctions and the regime’s corrupt nepotism have battered the country’s economy, leading to widespread discontent and persistent political unrest. Ordinary Iranians, often led by women, are courageously demanding equality, freedom, and living conditions commensurate with the country’s abundant natural and human resources.

Engaging in a grueling war against Israel would risk further destabilizing the regime, or even causing its downfall. Shakespeare wrote that it was possible for rulers to occupy “swirling minds” with “foreign quarrels”;

Iranian religious leaders are nevertheless aware that a discontented population could be tempted to revolt if forced to endure the torments of a new adventure of violence.

Furthermore, the proxies that Iran deploys against Israel, against U.S. forces, and against other regional actors (such as Saudi Arabia) are also occasionally used to suppress domestic protests. As this network weakens, Iranian religious leaders may feel doubly vulnerable, and therefore desperately need to reestablish both internal and external deterrence. They must proceed with caution, a war between Israel and the Islamic Republic would inevitably involve the United States, and the Iranians know they would have no chance against such combined military power.

Benjamin Netanyahu also faces serious challenges. A prolonged conflict would exhaust Israel’s resources and could lead to significant human losses. It is difficult to predict the potential impact of a costly war on its already deeply divided government. Mr. Netanyahu has centered his political legacy on blocking Iran’s nuclear ambitions; however, he could precisely accelerate the outcome he fears the most.

Ali Khamenei has always been the principal architect of the country’s nuclear program, and the mullahs have long relied on the Western illusion that concessions and promises of compromise could deter their quest for entry into the club of nuclear-armed states. nuclear weapon. The regime claims to be bound by a fatwa from Khamenei prohibiting the obtaining of weapons of mass destruction, and it has always maintained that its nuclear program pursues exclusively peaceful purposes. However, many of the people who constantly repeated this speech today affirm that all the pieces of the bomb puzzle are in place.

Immense risks

This scenario obviously involves immense risks. A rush to complete the bomb would almost certainly provoke Israeli – and potentially US – pre-emptive strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, which would just as likely trigger a wider conflict. Iran’s proxies could be deployed against U.S. bases, Saudi oil installations, international shipping lanes and a number of other targets, with devastating consequences for the region and the global economy.

Both Israel and Iran are currently walking on a tightrope. Israel is still struggling to overcome the loss of its aura of invulnerability

post-October 7, as Iran struggles to maintain its regional influence. Both countries realize that all-out war would be catastrophic, but neither can afford to completely back down.

The United States and its allies, who have long relied on tactical and corrective responses to every escalation, must urgently develop a strategy. However, the only real solution lies in a democratic Iran. Neither the Israeli nor the US military can achieve this goal; only the Iranian population is capable of this, and they have shown themselves to be more and more determined in recent years. For now, it is necessary for the rest of the world to confront and contain the regime’s unacceptable behavior, while supporting the democratic aspirations of Iranians.

Copyright : Project Syndicate, 2024.

Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University and a researcher at the Hoover Institution.