Six months into the Gaza war, the Iranian regime finds itself in a new predicament. While aware of its critical internal situation and the looming threat of renewed protests, it has doubled down on its warmongering. This approach, as all signs indicate, offers only short-term benefits.
Now, faced with Israel’s recent bombing of its consulate in Syria, the regime faces a difficult choice. The attack resulted in the loss of key figures involved in its proxy wars. Responding forcefully would have significant consequences, potentially escalating into a full-blown war that would be devastating given Iran’s internal fragility. However, inaction also carries heavy burdens, leaving the regime trapped in a stalemate with crushing repercussions.
This impasse has sparked conflict among the regime’s officials, factions, and affiliated media. Frustrated by perceived weakness and retreat, some criticize the regime’s growing inaction. They argue that slogans like “system’s power” and “restraining power” have lost their meaning, becoming mere tools to bolster regime morale.
One such comment, which went viral on social media, exemplifies this frustration and fear. In a state TV interview, strategic affairs expert Mohammad Taghi Aghayan stated:
“I don’t know how long we can appease them. Resorting to proxy forces again wouldn’t be wise. It would undermine our regional dominance and weaken our deterrence. A direct response from the Islamic Republic in occupied Palestine to the Zionist regime is the best course of action. Tonight, they assassinated two key figures in the region, and most of our people still don’t grasp the magnitude of this disaster.”
In an attempt to quell escalating fear among its supporters, the regime invokes “goodwill of the system” and “strategic patience.” We see this tactic employed in various statements.
Hossein Alai, a member of the IRGC, suggests a response so unexpected it would catch Israel off guard. He emphasizes the need for patient planning and implementing deterrence strategies that Israel wouldn’t anticipate.
Even more intriguing is the speech by regime MP Salar Abnoush. He questions the calls for immediate retaliation:
“They ask, ‘why is revenge not taking place?’ What kind of thinking is this? What kind of words are these that some people are expressing? 46 of their ships have been damaged in international waters in recent months. Why do some belittle this issue and want to drag us directly into conflict? If we fire a rocket, they will fire back, even on our Friday prayer ceremonies. Is that considered harsh revenge?”
Other outlets, like the Kayhan daily, the official mouthpiece of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, offer even more exaggerated claims. It wrote:
“Israelis rushed to stores after Iran threatened revenge, stocking up on basic necessities.”
The state-run Etemad daily emphasizes the importance of creating fear and uncertainty in the opponent. It argues that keeping the enemy constantly on edge is a critical victory in itself.
However, such propaganda becomes transparent as mere psychological manipulation, as the regime itself admits. What’s evident is the regime’s growing humiliation.
The people of the region, particularly those in Gaza and Palestine, now understand that the Palestinian cause is merely a tool for the regime to deflect from its primary struggle – the war between the Iranian people and the regime itself. The freedom of Iran and the region hinges on this decisive conflict. Regardless of whether Khamenei chooses strategic patience or violent retaliation, he cannot escape the reality that his ultimate battle will be with the Iranian people.
