After firing some from Iran 180 ballistic missiles in Israel, overnight the Middle East once more found itself getting ready to a costly and devastating regional war. Israel and its ally, the United States, shot down a lot of the rockets.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately announced retaliation for the attack. He he called it “a big mistake” for which Iran will “pay”.
The strike marked a dramatic shift in Iran’s calculus after weeks of escalating Israeli attacks on the leaders of its proxy groups, Hamas and Hezbollah, and their forces in Gaza and Lebanon.
Iran has traditionally outsourced its fighting to Hezbollah and Hamas. She was very concerned about the opportunity of being drawn into direct confrontation with Israel due to the implications for the ruling regime – namely the possible internal dissent and chaos that any war with Israel could cause.
When Hamas political leader Ismail Haniya was killed in Tehran in late July, Iran’s leaders said they might respond appropriately. They principally left it to Hezbollah.
And as Israel has intensified its military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon in recent weeks, one other Iranian proxy group, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, he claimed to have retaliated firing missiles and drones at Israeli cities and US destroyers in the Red Sea. Israel responded air attacks on Yemen.
In this context, from the Iranian standpoint, it looked like Iran was simply sitting on the fence and never playing its leadership role in difficult Israel. Therefore, to a large extent, Iran had to fulfill its role because the leader of the so-called “axis of resistance” and join the fight.
The fight against Israel is basically a pillar of state identity in Iran. The Iranian political establishment is predicated on the principle of difficult the United States and liberating Palestinian lands occupied by Israel. These things are rooted in the identity of the Iranian state. Therefore, if Iran doesn’t follow this principle, it runs a serious risk of undermining its own identity.
Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA
A fragile balancing act
However, this kind of direct attack by Iran carries serious risks.
Domestically, the Iranian political regime is affected by a serious crisis of legitimacy. There have been many popular uprisings in Iran in recent years. These include the bigWomen, life, freedom” movement that erupted after Mahsa Amini allegedly died in police custody worn incorrectly her hijab.
There can be a large dissenting opinion in Iran that questions the regime’s anti-American and anti-Israel state identity and its involvement in constant conflict with each countries.
The Iranian authorities subsequently feared that a direct confrontation with Israel and the United States would raise internal voices of dissent and seriously threaten the regime’s survival. It is that this existential threat that stops Iran from acting on its principles.
AP
Moreover, Iran has a latest president, Masoud Pezeshkian, who belongs to the reformist camp and has a program to improve Iran’s relations with the West. Which he was talking about reviving the Iran nuclear agreement with the international community, sending signals that Iran is prepared to talk with the Americans.
The problem is that regional dynamics have completely modified for the reason that agreement was negotiated with the Obama administration in 2015. Iran has been a pariah state in recent years – and much more so for the reason that conflict between Israel and Hamas began a yr ago.
Since then, no Western country would consider it appropriate or politically expedient to engage in nuclear talks with Iran to ease international sanctions on the regime. Not at a time when Iran is openly calling for the destruction of Israel, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in their attacks on Israel, and now engaging in confrontations with Israel itself.
The timing is subsequently disastrous for Pezeshkian’s program to repair the damage done to Iran’s global position.
Pamela Smith/AP
Ultimately, nonetheless, it will not be the president who decides in Iran – it’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Supreme National Security Council who consider problems with war and peace and judge on a plan of action. The supreme leader can be the top of state and appoints the top of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
IRGC generals have advocated for more serious and decisive motion against Israel for the reason that Gaza war began. And it looks just like the supreme leader has finally heeded that advice.
Thus, the regime maintains a delicate balance of the next aspects:
preserving Iran’s state identity and what it represents in the region, in addition to the necessity to contain internal dissent and ensure its survival.
Under normal circumstances, it was easy for Iran to maintain this balance. It could manage its domestic opponents through brute force or concessions and advocate an aggressive foreign policy in the region.
Now the dimensions has tipped. From the Iranian perspective, Israel has been so brazen in its actions against its proxies that it simply didn’t look good for Iran to proceed to sit on the fence and take no motion.
As such, it has turn into more essential for Iran to emphasize its anti-American and anti-Israel state identity and maybe deal with a suitable level of risk from increased domestic dissent.
Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA
Where is that this going?
By attacking Israel, Iran can be prepared for one more risk – direct retaliation from Israel and the outbreak of total war.
According to Netanyahu’s playbook, the conflict in the region really continues. Was supporting for striking Iran and for the United States targeting Iran. Now Israel has justification to retaliate against Iran and drag the United States into the conflict.
Unfortunately, Iran is now also prepared for the complete Persian Gulf to turn into embroiled in the conflict, as any retaliation by Israel and maybe the United States would expose American assets in the Persian Gulf, such as naval ships and merchant ships, to attacks by Iran or its allies . This could have serious consequences for trade and security in the region.
Things are heading in that direction. Iran would know that striking Israel would trigger Israeli retaliation and that this retaliation would likely come with U.S. support. Iran appears willing to bear the prices.