In light of the possibility of renewed confrontation between Iran, the United States, and Israel, estimates are increasing that Tehran will resort to an exceptional decision to drag Israel directly into the war, not only to respond to American strikes, but to use the external confrontation to stabilize the regime and strengthen the cohesion of its internal base.
In an interview conducted by Gadi Ness on Radio North 104.5FM, Dr. Ido Zelkovich, head of the Middle East Studies Program at Emek Jezreel Academy, believed that the Iranian leadership may view Israeli intervention as a tool to help it strengthen the regime at home, at a time when it is facing popular pressures and increasing internal conflicts.
Zelkovich pointed out that Iran has been keen, so far, to avoid directing major strikes against specific targets in the Gulf region, most notably Qatar, pointing out that this behavior is especially prominent in light of the role played by Doha in mediating a memorandum of understanding between the parties.
“I see something interesting,” he said. Until now, Iran has been careful not to fire at two places, and when shooting occurred, it was symbolic.
He added: “I am talking mainly about Qatar, which participated in mediating the memorandum of understanding, the importance of which the Iranians do not seem to understand.”
He believed that the Gulf states should carefully study how Qatar uses its political and economic power, saying: “If I were one of the leaders of the Gulf states, I would be concerned that Qatar is using soft power, while its partners in the Gulf are left behind and sacrificed in the name of geopolitics.”
According to his analysis, the more the United States deepens its strikes and targets strategic and civilian sites that change the picture of the situation inside Iran, the more likely Tehran will try to fire at Israel and bring it directly into the confrontation.
“If we look at the broader geopolitical climate, we see that Iran is warming up the engines,” Zelkovich said.
He added: “The more the United States deepens its strikes on strategic and civilian targets that change the picture of the situation in Iran, we may witness attempts by the Islamic Republic to fire at Israel with the aim of creating a new reality.”
He considered that a broad Israeli response might serve the Iranian regime specifically at a stage in which it faces internal erosion, struggles over influence, and increasing pressure from the street.
According to his assessment, the confrontation may allow Tehran to present the war as a battle for national survival, revive the feeling of an external threat, and regroup around the centers of power within the regime.
He said: “Every time Iran fires on us and tries to drag us into a more forceful response, it helps the regime tighten its grip and strengthen support within circles that support it or have natural sympathy for it.”
He continued: “The Iranians need an Israeli response and intervention to strengthen their grip on their popular base. “Every attack we carry out strengthens the regime’s resilience within its support base, and helps it increase support among those in the middle of society who depend on it for their livelihoods.”
Zelkovich also touched on the extent of the possibility of separating the Iranian regime from the people living under its authority, noting that this debate has emerged since the beginning of the war, especially with regard to targeting civilian sites, and whether these strikes serve Israel or turn against it.
He said: “There was a discussion at the beginning of the war about whether targeting civilian targets served Israel, as well as about the possibility of separating the people from the regime in the first place.”
He explained that there are two basic facts that should be taken into consideration, the first of which is related to the size of participation in Ali Khamenei’s funeral ceremony.
He said: “About 10 million people participated in the funeral ceremony, which is approximately 10% of the Iranian people.”
The second factor, according to his estimation, relates to the extent of the dependence of large segments of the population on state institutions.
He added: “We must understand that at least 30% to 40% of the Iranian people support the regime or need it to secure their livelihood.”
He believed that this meant that the regime was not only based on coercion and repressive devices, but also on a wide network of interests, employment opportunities, loyalties, and economic dependency.
Therefore, any external strike may push even groups that are not completely identified with the authority to rally around it, which makes luring Israel into a broader confrontation an option that Tehran may see as a means of protecting the regime at home as much as it is a response to its opponents abroad.
