The Iranian regime’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei appears to have embarked on a strategic move by instigating a war in Palestine and other Muslim nations. The underlying motivation seems to be an attempt to manage the internal unrest within Iranian society and preempt potential uprisings.
This decision is rooted in a complex web of factors, including internal divisions within the regime’s political structure, heightened dissent over power-sharing, and the imperative to manipulate the upcoming elections at the Assembly of Experts, which will address the critical issue of Khamenei’s succession.
Additionally, there is a need to cloak the deficiencies in the 2020 parliamentary elections, which faced widespread opposition from the Iranian populace during nationwide uprisings against various factions within the regime.
The narrative takes a turn to analyze the outcomes of Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel. This event provided the Iranian regime with a window of opportunity to secure temporary and tactical advantages.
Among these gains, the most notable include a temporary hindrance to the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, the redirection of international and domestic attention to the Gaza crisis, presenting the regime as a pivotal player in the region, and the crucial boost to the morale of IRGC members and proxy forces who had experienced demoralization due to past uprisings and the regime’s political failures.
However, it is essential to approach the discussion with a discerning eye, as terms like “temporary,” “short-term,” and “transitory” are strategically employed to describe Khamenei’s tactical gains. This choice of language implies a recognition that the initial enthusiasm surrounding these achievements is destined to be short-lived.
As global powers and public opinion pivoted to scrutinize the Iranian regime’s role in fomenting conflict, Khamenei attempted to shift the narrative by denying his involvement.
Through Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, he conveyed a message suggesting that the operation was a ‘Palestinian’ initiative, and the regime was uninformed and not involved.
This attempt to claim victory in the Gaza war quickly transformed into a fleeting illusion, especially as evidence of the regime’s role started to surface.
The regime’s initial bravado, with talks of suicide troops ready to be deployed and veiled threats of an expanded war, underwent a significant transformation as concrete evidence of its involvement emerged.
This shift in tone is reflected in the concerned speeches by regime officials and media, highlighting the potentially severe consequences of the war. President Ebrahim Raisi, in a departure from earlier rhetoric, emphasized the urgent need to cease attacks in Gaza, displaying a certain acknowledgment of the escalating humanitarian crisis.
Simultaneously, Amir Saeed Irvani, the regime’s ambassador to the United Nations, sought to distance Iran from actions against American military forces in Syria and Iraq.
Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, member of Expediency Council, introduced a cautionary note, warning against turning the Gaza war into a broader conflict between Iran and America. He hinted that such a scenario “could play into the hands of the Zionist regime.”
This series of statements reveals a growing fear within the regime, particularly its leadership, of international attention focused on its warmongering activities. The regime seems to prefer conflicts beyond its borders, as long as the destructive aftermath does not pose a direct threat to its grip on power.
It becomes increasingly evident that Khamenei’s regime lacks the capacity for a conventional war, a paradox that extends to Khamenei’s proxies and the IRGC. Anticipated maximum gains from the Gaza war appear to diminish as the conflict intensifies.
If Khamenei cannot freeze the situation and retain partial victories, the consequences could be strategically significant. One crucial outcome would be the loss of strategic depth, particularly concerning Palestine. This loss is predicted to have a domino effect, potentially extending to other regions.
While acknowledging the vast scope of this issue, it is clear that the effects of strategic loss are gradually becoming visible. The regime’s desperation to control the narrative and distance itself from the war’s consequences suggests a deep-seated fear of international scrutiny.
The paradox of desiring conflicts beyond its borders, yet fearing the destructive consequences, paints a picture of a regime caught in a delicate balancing act. As the Gaza war unfolds, Khamenei’s strategic achievements hang in the balance, with the potential for significant repercussions if the regime cannot navigate the complexities of the situation effectively.
