The United States and its steadfast ally, Israel, perceived a decline in Iran's regional power following significant damage to its proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, and the subsequent weakening of the Assad regime in Syria. Believing this opportune, they sought to intensify pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, potentially paving the way for regime change and the installation of a pro-Western government by exacerbating internal instability. However, Israeli strikes on Iran on June 13 and the ensuing 12-day standoff yielded consequences far from their estimations. These actions inadvertently ignited a surge of nationalism within Iran, even among those previously protesting the regime's perceived oppressive rule. As the strikes intensified, targeting civilian areas and reportedly killing around 1060 people, according to Iranian official sources, opposition members and even political prisoners began viewing them as a declaration of war against ordinary Iranians and their nationhood.
The Iranian regime, which had long prioritized loyalists over moderate voices, began to question the credibility of some pseudo hardliners after the standoff. Suspicions arose that certain individuals might have colluded with Israeli intelligence, facilitating the penetration of Iran's security apparatus and leading to the deaths of key military officials and nuclear scientists. These doubts about loyalist collaboration intensified as missile strikes targeted sensitive air defense systems, military bases, and nuclear sites. It's plausible that the regime may now temper its radical Islamist propensities, incorporating more moderate values and figures in the face of continued pressure from the US and Israel. While militarily weakened by the strikes, Iran has experienced unprecedented national cohesion, a stark contrast to the previous marginalization of moderate voices. If effectively channeled, this emerging social cohesion could significantly strengthen Iran's foundation for a swift resurrection. Consequently, Iran's postwar discourse has shifted, revolving around a cross-factional consensus on national cohesion as a fundamental pillar of security, representing a decisive move from its traditional reliance on military deterrence for regime survival. Iran has historically employed a forward defense strategy to prevent direct attacks on its homeland, with its proxy groups across the Middle East (Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Gaza) demonstrating the effectiveness of this approach by allowing Iran to bolster its domestic military capabilities without inviting direct intervention. Israel, supported by the US, aimed to penetrate these security layers through a prolonged military campaign. Now, Iran will likely leverage its newfound domestic support to gradually revitalize these defensive structures.
Excessive Pressures Often Backfire
Some scholars have argued that the US's focus on regional instabilities, such as its fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and the management of Arab-Israeli relations, diverted its attention from the threat posed by Iran. They contended it was crucial to further subdue Tehran through coercive power, keeping it "defanged and silenced" for years to come. They cite the US intervention in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, which substantially weakened Iran and constrained its regional ambitions until the 21st century. However, what often went unnoticed was that this period of silence might have been a strategic interval for Iran to quietly bolster its network of proxies and build military capabilities for future use. Iran's Supreme Leader and many hardliners are already hailing the country's retaliation to Israeli attacks as a victory. With this emboldened spirit, a quicker military and nuclear resurgence is likely.
The report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) indicating unsatisfactory cooperation from Iran fueled suspicions in the US and Israel that Iran was surreptitiously and rapidly advancing its nuclear program towards its final stages. Given ongoing diplomatic efforts, the US could have threatened tougher sanctions on Iran, conditional on its cooperation and allowing IAEA inspectors access to nuclear sites. However, the recent military face-off has effectively shut down any possibility of such inspections.
On the contrary, the military strikes against Iran sabotaged delicate diplomatic efforts to reach a nuclear deal. Iran's interest in diplomacy and its positive approach to a prospective nuclear deal were evident in its willingness to pursue an agreement, albeit with favorable terms, to avoid stringent sanctions that were stimulating social discord within its territory.
Israel's devastating military campaign in Gaza has already impacted the Arab-Israeli peace process. Furthermore, a palpable conflict of regional ambitions between Turkey and Israel is evident in Syria. Iran is poised to exploit these cleavages within the Middle East. The recent conflict between Iran and Israel has prompted Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei to purge and restructure the country's leadership and security apparatus, enforcing strict scrutiny of the family and social ties of security and military officials. These purges and the emerging social cohesion are likely to result in an Iran far more resolved to sustain a prolonged struggle.
---
*Senior Lecturer in Political Science, SVM Autonomous College, Jagatsinghpur, Odisha, India
Comments