Iran’s Identity Crisis: Pressure to Confront Israel
After Iran fired nearly 180 ballistic missiles at Israel overnight, the Middle East is once again on the brink of a costly, devastating regional war. Israel and its ally the United States shot down most of the missiles.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed immediate retaliation for the attack. He called it a “huge mistake” that Iran would “pay for”.
The strike marked a dramatic shift in Iran’s calculations weeks after Israeli attacks on the leaders of their proxy groups, Hamas and Hezbollah, and their forces in both Gaza and Lebanon escalated.
Iran’s war strategy has traditionally been to outsource its fighting to Hezbollah and Hamas. It is very concerned about being drawn into a direct confrontation with Israel because of the implications for the ruling regime – namely the potential internal dissension and chaos that any war with Israel could produce.
When Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh was killed in Tehran in late July, Iran’s leaders said they would respond appropriately. They basically left it to Hezbollah to do it.
And as Israel stepped up its military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon in recent weeks, another of Iran’s proxy groups, Yemen’s Houthi rebels, claimed to have retaliated by striking Israeli cities with missiles and drones and US destroyers in the Red Sea. Israel retaliates with airstrikes in Yemen.
In this context, from an Iranian perspective, Iran appears to be sitting on the fence without taking its leadership role in challenging Israel. Therefore, to a large extent, Iran had to play its role as the leader of the so-called “Axis of Resistance” and enter the fray.
Fighting Israel is a pillar of Iran’s state identity. The Iranian political establishment is founded on the principle of challenging the United States and liberating Palestinian land occupied by Israel. Those things are inherent in the Iranian state identity. Therefore, if Iran does not act on this principle, there is a serious risk of undermining its own identity.
Iran’s delicate balance act
However, there are clearly serious risks to such a direct attack by Iran.
Internally, Iran’s political regime suffers from a serious crisis of legitimacy. There have been several popular movements in Iran in recent years. This includes the massive “Women, Life, Freedom” movement that began after Mahsa Amini died in police custody for allegedly not wearing a hijab.
There is also a major dissident view in Iran that challenges the regime’s anti-American and anti-Israel state identity and commitment to perpetual conflict with both countries.
Therefore, Iranian officials are concerned that a direct confrontation with Israel and the US would force out these internal dissenting voices and seriously threaten the existence of the regime. It is an existential threat that prevents Iran from acting on its principles.
Additionally, Iran has a new president, Massoud Pezhekian, who belongs to the reformist camp and has an agenda to improve Iran’s relations with the West. He has been talking to the international community about reviving the Iran nuclear deal, sending signals that Iran is ready to negotiate with the Americans.
But the problem is that the regional dynamic has completely changed since the deal was struck with the Obama administration in 2015. Iran has been a pariah state in recent years – and even more so since the conflict between Israel and Hamas began a year ago.
Since then, no Western country has deemed it appropriate or politically expedient to engage in nuclear talks with Iran, with the aim of easing international sanctions on the regime. Not when Iran is openly calling for Israel’s destruction, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in their attacks on Israel, and now engaging in confrontation with Israel itself.
The timing is therefore dire for Pezhekian’s agenda to repair the damage to Iran’s global standing.
Ultimately, though, it’s not the president who calls the shots in Iran — it’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Supreme National Security Council that deliberate on matters of war and peace and decide on courses of action. The Supreme Leader is also the head of state and appoints the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Since the start of the war in Gaza, IRGC generals have been advocating for more serious and decisive action against Israel. And it seems the Supreme Leader has finally listened to this advice.
So, the regime has been striking a delicate balance between these factors: Iran’s state identity and what it stands for in the region, and the need to manage internal dissent and ensure its survival.
Under normal circumstances Iran found it easy to maintain this balance. It can manage its internal opposition through brute force or appeasement and advocate an aggressive foreign policy in the region.
Now, the scales have tipped. From the Iranian perspective, Israel has been so brazen in its actions against its proxies, Iran does not see fit to sit on the fence without taking action.
As such, it has become more important for Iran to assert its anti-American, anti-Israel state identity and face an acceptable level of risk from the rise of internal dissent.
Where do things go from here?
Along with the attack on Israel, Iran is also prepared for another risk – direct retaliation from Israel and provoking an all-out war.
According to Netanyahu’s playbook, conflict in the region is indeed underway. He has been advocating striking Iran and targeting the US against Iran. Now, Israel has the justification to retaliate against Iran and drag the United States into the conflict as well.
Unfortunately, Iran is also now poised to see the entire Persian Gulf plunge into conflict because any retaliation by Israel and perhaps the United States would put American assets in the Persian Gulf, such as naval vessels and merchant ships, at risk of attack by Iran. or its affiliates. And this could have a major impact on trade and security in the region.
Things are progressing like this. Iran knew that striking Israel would result in Israeli retaliation and that retaliation would be backed by America. Judging by Iran’s recent escalation, it appears that the nation is ready to bear its costs.
Shahram Akbarzadeh, Convener, Middle East Studies Forum (MESF), and Deputy Director (International), Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalization, Deakin University
This article is reproduced from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. has been published. Read the original article.