A Week into War with Iran: Public Mobilization and Government Resilience
Overview of Current Sentiments in Iran
As tensions rise with the ongoing conflict involving Iran, public sentiment appears to be rallying around nationalistic symbols, momentarily overshadowing the widespread grievances against the clerical regime. Recent assessments from Tehran indicate that the government is successfully mobilizing the populace, including its critics, by emphasizing themes of nationalism, sovereignty, and territorial cohesion. This does not necessarily signify a fundamental shift in public attitudes toward the regime but reflects an immediate response to external aggression.
With military aircraft flying over Iranian skies and graphic images of damage, casualties, and civilian suffering circulating in local media and social networks, the primary public outrage is currently directed at foreign adversaries rather than the regime itself. There is a growing perception that Israel aims not merely to disrupt Iran’s military capabilities but to destabilize the nation altogether, fostering fears of potential anarchy and civil war.
Leadership Stability Despite Potential Threats
Discussions around the potential assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, as proposed by Israeli politicians, do not inherently suggest a swift fall of the regime. Unlike Hezbollah or Hamas, the Islamic Republic is supported by a structured political system with numerous mechanisms in place. The “Assembly of Experts,” composed of 88 clerics responsible for appointing the Supreme Leader, would likely find a successor, potentially even more hardline than Khamenei.
Furthermore, the death of the leader could temporarily solidify governmental unity, complicating attempts by the populace to instigate protests aimed at undermining the regime. Revolutionary Guards may seize this opportunity to bolster their control over state institutions, potentially establishing a military-centric governance that could be as stringent as the current administration.
Public Sentiment and Future Outlook
The short-term public unity observed in the face of conflict is expected to dissipate after the fighting ends. Citizens are likely to channel their feelings of humiliation and anger towards the government, blaming its failures for leading Iran into such destructive confrontations.
Recent years have seen a notable erosion of trust in state institutions, compounded by despair over economic hardship and widening gaps between the regime and the populace. This trend may worsen in the aftermath of governmental failures and the ramifications of war. Iranians are likely to question the regime’s allocation of resources, especially its military support for regional proxies rather than addressing domestic infrastructure needs or civilian protection.
If substantial protests emerge post-conflict, they could confront a weakened regime struggling to muster the resources it once had to maintain stability against internal challenges. Even before the conflict, social pressures were escalating, and a political transformation could occur if the balance of power between reformists and status-quo advocates shifts significantly.
Internal Challenges and Potential for Change
The continued assault on governmental mechanisms during wartime may weaken the regime’s capacity to respond effectively to internal challenges, gradually undermining the cohesion of its ruling elite and the security forces supporting it.
Increased criticisms from ultra-conservative factions in Iran have surfaced, targeting the government’s approach to various issues, from failing to respond to a previous Israeli strike to shortcomings in the Syrian theater. While the regime may showcase unity in the short term, its long-term failures could lead to heightened friction at the leadership level and deeper divisions within power structures.
Strategic Recommendations for Israel
In light of the current situation, Israel must maintain focus on its primary objectives in the region, particularly preventing Iran’s progress towards nuclear weapon capability and diminishing its strategic assets. However, it would benefit Israel to utilize this conflict as a means to weaken the regime and disrupt its foundational structures, including its coercive mechanisms, primarily the Revolutionary Guards.
Long-term regime change in Iran is a complex process. It relies on factors largely beyond Israel’s control. Nevertheless, recent developments may expedite internal transitions within the Islamic Republic following the conflict.
Israel should continue to work toward its outlined military objectives while also pursuing diplomatic, economic, and informational strategies. This may involve supporting various social sectors within Iran and civil society institutions, promoting solutions for internet censorship, or establishing foreign-funded strike funds to ensure livelihoods during potential protests and strikes. Such initiatives could lay the groundwork for significant movements in Iran when the time is ripe.
Dr. Raz Zimet is the Head of the Iran and Shiite Axis Program at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS).