Is Iran’s anti-Israel, anti-American rhetoric all bark and no bite?

On August 27, Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, told newly elected President Masoud Pezeshkian and his cabinet that talking to the enemy could also be useful.

In a thinly veiled reference to Iran’s cooperation with the international community – and the United States specifically – Khamenei said Iran shouldn’t pin its hopes on such cooperation, but that that is no reason not to carry talks with the enemy.

It is that this green light that Pezeshkian must re-establish contact with the International Atomic Energy Agency and Western countries over Iran’s nuclear program, in addition to to check with international partners in regards to the growing tensions with Israel.

The statement appears to signal a desire to step back from the brink of all-out war with Israel over the difficulty. attempt Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil in July and return to the mutual deterrence that has defined their relationship for years.

But that is probably not possible, given how much the region has modified over the past yr.

Crossing the edge in April

In April this yr, Israel attacked Iran embassy complex in Damascuskilling members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

This led to a fastidiously planned Iranian response. Iran couldn’t ignore the Israeli attack, which the authorities condemned as an attack on Iranian sovereign territory but didn’t wish to enter right into a war with Israel. As a result, Iran reportedly gave advance warning his upcoming replywhich allowed Israel and its allies to shoot down many of the greater than 300 missiles and drones fired from Iran.

That response was seen as a victory in Iran, nonetheless, since it demonstrated its technological ability to achieve Israel. It also marked a shift away from Iran’s default position of speaking tough but not engaging in direct confrontation.

Iran clearly crossed a line in April but seems very concerned about the implications.

Then on July 31, Haniyeh was murdered during a visit to Iran. Although Israel has neither confirmed nor denied responsibility, that’s it was commonly believed be behind it.

This has put Iranian leaders in a difficult position. There have been calls from radicals for retaliation to revive Iran’s image as a rustic that may defend itself and avenge the killing of a detailed ally. Khamenei also he insisted Israel will probably be punished for its actions, however the timing of this can depend upon Iran’s decision.

It is evident that the Iranian leadership cannot afford to look weak and risk damaging its standing with its allies and proxies within the region, which include Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen and other Shiite militant groups in Iraq and Syria. But there are other considerations weighing heavily on their minds.

Legitimization Crisis

A direct response to Israel could open a Pandora’s box. It would pave the best way for further direct attacks by Israel, even perhaps targeted assassinations of Iranian leaders.

It is an actual possibility. Israel has demonstrated its willingness to reply to any threat with force under the guise of self-defense. It has also demonstrated its ability to conduct precision strikes in Iran, resembling its retaliatory attack within the radar system in the town of Isfahan following an Iranian missile and drone attack in April.

Moreover, such escalation carries an actual risk of drawing the United States into the conflict.

The Iranian leadership has made a high-quality art of balancing on the sting of risk. Anti-Americanism is ingrained within the political discourse of the political elite and frames Iranian foreign policy. But Iran has thus far avoided war with the United States since it could jeopardize the whole lot.

The reason: Iran’s leaders are already concerned about their political future, and a conflict with Israel and the US could seriously aggravate the situation.

There is currently a big disconnect between large segments of society and the ruling regime. Two years ago, Iran was shaken by spontaneous mass anti-regime protests under the slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom“They began in response to death Mahsa Amini arrested for improperly wearing the hijab, however it soon was an anti-establishment riot that called for the “fall of the dictatorship” and an end to the Islamic regime. The riot was suppressed by force, arbitrary detentions and executions.

The death of President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash in May of this yr gave the ruling regime a possibility to reconcile with reformist critics. Pezeshkian, a reformist lawmaker, was vetted and approved to run within the election selection replace Raisi with the intention of accelerating voter turnout. Iran supreme leader has repeatedly stressed that voter turnout is an indicator of the regime’s legitimacy.

But Participation rate in the primary round of elections it was only 39.9% – the bottom end in the history of presidential elections in Iran – and only achieved 49.8% within the last round. This indicates the depth of the general public’s disillusionment with the political system. Many reformers boycotted the elections and dismissed them as a farce and a smokescreen for the ruling regime.

Iran’s legitimacy crisis has peaked, leaving it vulnerable to a different explosion. A war with Israel or the United States could ignite this may of powder.

Potential solution for Iran?

The Iranian leadership is subsequently facing a dilemma. It cannot withdraw from its anti-Israeli and anti-American rhetoric. Tehran has built its foreign policy and created an enormous network on its basis, the so-called Axis of Resistance. It cannot betray this pillar of its identity.

But acting on this basis would have put the regime’s survival in danger. So the leadership sought an increasingly difficult balance.

The recent exchange of fireplace between Hezbollah and Israel could have been a response. By supporting Hezbollah, Iran can claim to have hurt Israel without striking back.

The goal is to revive the establishment that existed before April. This strategy involves delegating fighting to Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies to be able to protect the ruling regime from direct confrontation and prevent an existential threat to the leaders’ rule.

But that could be wishful pondering. The strategy could give Israel the justification it must strike Iranian targets again. And that, in turn, could function a spark for pent-up public frustration with the brutality of the ruling regime.