“A Nearly Suicidal Step”: Iran’s Options After Historical Attack
In the wake of a historic U.S. attack targeting crucial Iranian sites, including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, experts are analyzing the implications for Iran’s leadership and potential responses. Dr. Raz Zimet, the head of the Iran and Shiite Axis program at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), discussed these developments in a recent conversation with Professor Aryeh Eldad and Shai Golden on Radio 103FM.
Iran’s Leadership Dilemmas
Dr. Zimet emphasized that the Iranian regime has historically made decisions based not solely on ideological principles but often on national interests, primarily focused on regime survival. “For 46 years, since the Islamic Revolution, they have demonstrated a tendency to prioritize national interests over ideology when the two clash,” he noted at the beginning of the discussion.
He recalled a significant meeting between Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Hamas leader Ismail Haniya in late 2023, where Khamenei reportedly reprimanded Haniya for launching attacks against Israel at a time when Iran and Hezbollah were unprepared for an integrated military operation. This suggests a critical miscalculation, according to Zimet, who believes that these decisions could impact Iran’s current strategic position.
Options on the Table for Iran
As the U.S. inflicts further damage on Iranian infrastructure, Dr. Zimet outlined the painful chostarts facing Khamenei. He will soon need to determine whether to negotiate with the U.S. or take a confrontational stance that could risk the regime’s very stability. “This may involve decisions that are nearly suicidal, risking not only additional U.S. strikes but also the potential instability of the Iranian regime itself,” Zimet warned.
He speculated that the Iranian leadership might prefer to avoid escalating the conflict, potentially opting for symbolic responses instead. Past actions, such as the missile strikes on a U.S. base in Iraq following the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, serve as a possible precedent for future reactions.
The Prospect of a Government Overhaul
In closing, Dr. Zimet addressed the likelihood of a regime change in Iran. He noted that as long as military operations are prevalent and the public sentiment is rallying around the government in response to external threats, there remains little immediate threat to the regime. “The Iranian public currently directs its anger at Israel over the destruction witnessed, which temporarily unites them around the flag,” he stated.
He warned, however, that post-conflict, this anger could shift to the government itself. Citizens may question how a nation of 90 million could sustain such heavy losses despite years of economic sacrifstarts and significant investments in military capabilities. “The questions raised could ultimately lead to unrest, although predicting the timeline for such developments is fraught with uncertainty,” Zimet concluded.
This analysis underscores the precarious position of Iran’s leadership amidst heightened military pressure and the continuous balancing act between ideology and national survival