The ongoing conflict in Gaza has unfurled a complex web of vested interests, one of the most intricate being the strategic advantages that the Iranian regime reaps from the turmoil. It’s crucial to discern the motivations that propel nations, particularly those with regional sway, to either fuel or dampen the flames of such conflicts.
The Iranian regime’s supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has, time and again, disclaimed any intent to engage in direct confrontation with the United States or Israel. Such conflicts, he insists, would only be detrimental to the regime’s ultimate goals of hegemony and religious authority. Yet, behind this facade of non-engagement lies a shrewd manipulation of the unfolding chaos.
Khamenei’s stance, even during the Trump era, remained steadfast—assurances echoed that war wasn’t on the agenda. He emphatically stated, “War will not happen, why? Because war has two sides: we are one side, they are the other side; we do not initiate war… Americans do not initiate war either, because Americans know that if they start a war here, it will be 100% to their detriment.”
For years, voices have decried the Khamenei regime as the epicenter of repression and crime. The price paid by the Iranian people and the oppressed echoes the lament of a tyrant’s reign. However, a sect of supporters, aligned with the regime’s interests, vehemently opposes any suggestion of war against it. It remains a conundrum: who, besides the Iranian Resistance and the freedom fighters, seeks to dismantle this regime in Tehran? These dissenting voices, advocating for a dialogue and reforms within the current regime, fail to recognize the imminent closure of this chapter as perceived by the Iranian populace.
Now, a month into the Gaza conflict, Khamenei stands at a juncture where he has secured substantial gains from multiple angles. His goal remains to maintain this advantage and amplify it further, should the opportunity present itself.
It’s evident that Khamenei strategically uses the Gaza conflict as a diversion, a shield against the inevitable uprising inside Iran. His tacit approval of bloodshed and the plight of both the helpless people of Gaza and innocent Jewish civilians bears testament to this shrewd manipulation. This calculated support for conflict serves to divert attention from the imminent downfall that looms over his regime.
The Iranian regime’s multifaceted objectives strategically position themselves across various tiers. At the domestic level, the emphasis remains on stifling any potential uprising or popular movements, employing heightened suppression and increasing the frequency of executions.
Simultaneously, the regime maneuvers electoral engineering, particularly in the selection of parliamentary and clerical bodies, with a critical focus on the potential succession after Khamenei. Regionally, Iran seeks to assert its dominance by manipulating Arab nations and notably Saudi Arabia within the framework of the Abraham Accords.
Globally, the regime aims to secure a significant foothold, especially in the latter stages of the Biden administration, to advance its agenda of regional hegemony. These objectives depict a regime adept at playing a multi-dimensional game, leveraging both internal and external dynamics to fortify its position and extend its influence.
The current situation warrants a critical evaluation of Iran’s role in perpetuating this crisis. Are those aligned with or in implicit support of the regime willing to condone the dismantling of the regime through civil uprisings and the freedom fighters? The cost Iran bears in supporting conflicts beyond its borders while neglecting its own people’s needs requires scrutiny.
It’s essential to differentiate between those advocating for the Iranian regime and those earnestly seeking a transition of power to the Iranian people. The misdirection of funds into terrorism and suppression versus the unmet needs of the Iranian populace serves as a stark contrast, raising questions about the priorities of the regime.
The onus now rests on those who oppose the regime, both domestically and internationally, to delineate a path towards its overthrow. The need for a dialogue that extends beyond rhetoric, that brings together allies of change, remains imperative.
The dangers of appeasement toward a regime that strategically maneuvers conflicts for its own gain need urgent recognition. It’s time to assess the pragmatic steps toward the regime’s demise and ensure a transition of power to the Iranian people.
