Will Iran dramatically up the stakes in the Iran/Israel conflict, or will it settle for a symbolic reaction to play the long game?

The world is waiting with bated breath as the Islamic Republic of Iran (IR) weighs how to react to the Israeli strike in Damascus, which killed 7 members of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC. Whether a question of semantics, propaganda, or international law, the regime says their embassy was hit; while Israel disputes that, arguing it was a building next to it. While that matter is obviously paramount, in some ways, it also doesn’t matter: supporters of each country will spin the details to suit their narrative as to whether Iran’s counter would be deemed legitimate self-defence, retaliation or escalation. This much everyone can agree on: in a strike that echoed America assassinating Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad in 2020, this time Israel took out 7 IRGC members, not on some random road near Baghdad airport, but in a “semi-official” building in Damascus, which in some ways has become to Russia and Iran what Israel is to the USA. Everyone, including Israel’s main ally America, knows that the IR will react. But how, what, when and where remain TBD.

Thinking Like Tehran Has Proven Impossible

When trying to determine what Iran will do, it’s important to at least acknowledge that in its arithmetic, the IR views this as a reaction to the strike on Damascus, but knows all too well that any action (be it the IRGC or its proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon) would likely lead to a reaction by Israel: “Iranian officials and commanders believe it is not in our interests to openly engage in a war with Israel,” said Hossein Jalali, a member of Iran’s Parliament. But more importantly, to determine what Iran may do, you have to answer “What” is usually the more important question of “Why?” 

Iran Plays the Long Game

There are two aspects to this question, domestic and international. Governments need to “read the room” before making military decisions. Post 9/11, Americans would have supported President George W Bush if he decided to bomb Uranus – no questions asked.

Iran, known officially since 1979 as the Islamic Republic of Iran, is ultimately focused on self-preservation. Palestine is a great cause to elevate itself in the Islamic world. But even with its tentacles supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., Iran has not directly attacked a nation since the times of its great ancient kings, or Shahs. This doesn’t make it a victim, but it does seek to project itself as one in this dispute.

There are interesting psychological, anthropological and historical dynamics at play. Since Alexander the Great defeated Darius III not once but three times and took over the Persian empire, Iran has been a target of foreigners’ aspirations: after the Greeks in the 4th century BC, the nation was ruled at different points by Turks, Mongols and Arabs – though Iranians retained their culture, and language. I was born in Tehran in 1978 and left in 1983. In studying Iran’s history and listening to hundreds (if not thousands) of Iranians, it’s as if the defeat to Alexander and subsequent rules by foreigners affected the Iranian psyche a bit (but this is an altogether different topic, one which a sociologist and anthropologist could be better served to tackle) in that they may just want to live in peace, isolated from the world, but due to its strategic geographic location and natural resources in oil and gas, they can’t be left alone, while it’s government can’t let sleeping dogs lie (usually via proxies).

In any case, eventually Iran adopted Shiism and became different from the rest of the Islamic way that way (aside from language, of course), but remained secular relative to its Arab neighbour nations. Post-1979, the country has taken an admittedly more profound Arab/Islamic turn, and 45 years later, you are seeing the people rejecting this through a so-called Cultural Revolution by embracing traditional traditions: hordes of people visited the tomb of Cyrus the Great during Nowruz (our new year) and celebrated Chaharshanbe Suri with more fervour than usual. Iran is a paradox for many reasons, one of them being for a pretty secular people, living under an Islamic theocracy feels unnatural, and technology and a young demographic accentuates this divide.

To use a parallel, inasmuch as Karl Marx envisioned an industrial nation like Germany or America to adopt communism but had to settle instead for Russia, it’s almost as if Iran was not an ideal canvas for Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s Velayat-e-Faqih, because that kind of society and legal framework is bound to eventually run out of traction and steam if the underlying people of a society are not, by nature, all that religious. Indeed, while surveys are hard to conduct in Iran, in one by Gamaan: when asked about their preferred regime type: 34% chose a “secular republic” versus 22% who favored the existing the “Islamic republic.”

To be fair, in another survey by ERF.i: “60.4% of Iranians support a return to a constitutional monarchy in Iran, while only 17.5% favored a democratic republic. And of those who favored a return to a constitutional monarchy, a whopping 79.9% favor Reza Pahlavi – the exiled crown prince.” Recently the regime hoisted a billboard suggesting to criticize the Pahlavi era, and when the supreme leader Khamenei publicly commented on the previous “taghouti” regime – which hasn’t been in power for 45 years – you have to wonder if they are worried about growing public dissent. I’ve covered why Iranians have a dislike, distrust and disdain for republics before, because it’s not evident to Westerners (including myself) initially.

To be clear, in 1979, I think most would agree that Iran was a fairly conservative society, and religion was important to many, but the extent to which religion is the driving force and foundation of modern day Iran is – if we shall be honest – a bit incongruent with the nation’s history which goes back to 3200 BC, and as such, the oldest nation according to the UN (even predating Egypt). I’ve covered Iran’s history quite a bit, specifically trying to separate fact from fiction, propaganda from objective perspective.

So, What Will Iran Do?

Recall that Iran and Israel do not share a border, have no disputed territories to explain their conflict. Not only did Cyrus the Great free the Jews, but as recently as the 20th century, Iran and Israel were allies. Iran sold weapons to Israel when Arab states attacked it, and Israel returned the favor (somewhat) by selling Iran weapons (it also sold to Iraq) during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran has always had foreign forces meddle and influence it – Russia/USSR, the British Empire, the USA – so while I understand why some Iranians who oppose the IR view Israel as a friend, I just caution them to remember than Iran has never had true friends and Israel is/would be no different. Israel (and any nation, to be frank) would care about their interests and also view Iran as a tool to serve its own interests – but this is for another article, as well.

Ultimately, these are ideological opponents – the Jewish State of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran – who have let the Palestinian issue create a wedge between them, and over time grow into one of the biggest ticking bombs that could lead us to World War III (if we’re not already in it).

In some ways, Iran’s options are limited, and not enticing. While in theory Israel just wants to leave peacefully and Iran is the troublemaker in the region, objectively it’s important to acknowledge that it’s Israel who is seeking to escalate tensions in the regions in the near term, both because prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has no shortage of reasons to distract voters, but also to force America into the fray. The regime in Iran needs to do something, but not too much to create a scenario that could cause it an existential harm. By way of precedent, to avenge the death of Soleimani, Iran hit some innocuous targets back then, giving DC a head’s up of what was coming to mitigate the damage and spillover. But Baghdad airport wasn’t the Damascus embassy area, Russia is emboldened and also called out Israel’s actions; with multiple hot spots in the region, it’s clear that Iran has options, but nothing obvious or enticing. [Moreover, the IRGC did also take responsibility for the downing of Ukrainian Airline 752 after taking off from Tehran, but at least to my naive and innocent mind, I am not sure if that was a response to the assassination of Soleimani – though some Iranians do feel that way – but just incompetence and ineptitude]. In any case, if you fast forward to today, here are some options Tehran may be weighing.

1) Direct Attack From Iran to Israel

If you think about Iran’s main objective of self-preservation, do you think Iran will actually fire ballistic missiles from Iranian soil – over Iraq, Jordan and Syria no less – before hitting targets in Israel? Seems unlikely, especially given that the impressive Iron Dome may likely block any incoming forays (the Iron Dome is an air defense system manufactured by Israeli defense firm Rafael and co-produced by US defense giant RTX, formerly known as Raytheon). This actually reminds me of Saddam Hussein sending Scud missiles into Israel at the onset of the Gulf war in 1991 where the US invaded Iraq after Saddam tried to seize Kuwait. As side note: that was the first “television war” with CNN’s daily updates and visuals… with 10/7 and the conflict following it being the “first social media war.”

Despite sanctions, the reality is that Iran has upped its game tremendously in the areas of drone technology, missiles, space exploration and so on. To me, sanctions hurt average citizens because the rulers will always find way to enrich themselves. People get triggered when I say this, but if the regime feels any heat, it’s due to the people of Iran, and not the sanctions (directly).

Iranians – credited with some of the most impressive inventions throughout history – are ingenious and resourceful individuals who can solve problems despite limited resources and obstacles that would make most people give up. For example, after the 1979 revolution (or coup depending on whom you ask), Iran was hit with sanctions. When encouraged by Western powers, Saddam Hussein and Iraq invaded Iran’s Arab-speaking, oil-rich Khuzestan region, Iran’s air force was hampered by a lack of parts (as well as a tragic purge that saw the newly installed islamic regime kill many who were viewed as loyal to the Shah, including Nader Jahanbani, hailed as the “father of the Iranian Air Force”). Nonetheless, the Imperial Iranian Air Force (later renamed the Islamic Republic Air Force) used its aerial supremacy – thanks in no small part to the Grumman F-14s it had from the days of the Shah – to push back Saddam’s forces. The initial tit-for-that exchanges at the onset of the bloody 8-year war were the largest sorties since World War II. Subsequently, the Iranian Air Force pulled off what could be considered the greatest and most daring aerial attack in the history of aviation, the strike on the H-3 airfield in the most Western part of Iraq alongside the Jordanian border. In a 3-hour time span, Iranian jets first flew north and then traveled along the Iraq/Turkey border while refuelling a handful of times at an incredibly low altitude of 100 meters to avoid radars, destroying 48 jets and returned, unharmed.  

2) Using Proxies to Hit Israel

Iran could in theory leverage its “investments” in the area – Hezbollah in Lebanon being one – to use some of its hundreds of thousands of missiles and drones to make it rain over Tel Aviv, but again, to what end?

While not trying to absolve the Islamic Republic of any of its alleged and admitted misdeeds, this next move is as much about propaganda, positioning, posturing and “hearts and minds” as it is about tactical gains. Iran’s hardliners are already seething at the apparent lack of reaction to previous killings of IRGC members by the IDF. So if Iran has to sit on the sidelines for Hezbollah to carry out its “revenge,” can it really take credit and use that propaganda win? Probably not.

3) Hitting Embassies, Consulates, Adjacent Buildings

Earlier I said it didn’t matter ultimately (in practical terms) if the Damascus building was officially embassy grounds or not, because the practical outcome won’t change to fan boys and critics of each side. If you are “Am Israeli Chai-ng” as you are reading this, then clearly, it was a random, non-official building. If you are cursing “at the zionists for occupying Al-Quds,” obviously to you that building was the epicentre of Iran’s official presence in Syria. People lack intellectual honesty sometimes, and this is also why the world is a mess.

In its communications with the USA since the attack, Iran has stated that all Israeli embassies, consulates are now fair game. The USA has maintained that it was not aware or involved with the attack, to which Iran has asked it to stay out of it. So long as Iran hits Israeli targets and avoids American bases, I think this could stay contained. The Mullahs are calculating and long term thinking, even if in the near term nothing they say or do make sense to us in the West.

Either way, this is why aside from being a pacifist, I do not think such strikes on IRGC targets really make a major material impact; they just add to more death and destruction, and suffering of normal people on all sides.

Be Careful What You Ask For

But even if Israel’s argument that that adjacent building in Damascus was not in any way an official building, does that mean that the Islamic Republic can target community buildings next to or near their official buildings. Don’t forget that in 2006, Argentine prosecutors Alberto Nisman and Marcelo Martínez Burgos formally accused the Iranian government of directing the Jewish Community Centre Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (or AIMA) bombing, which occurred on July 18 1994 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, with Hezbollah carrying it out. 

To me, while I suspect Iran will direct certain projectiles (missiles, drone, etc) onto Israeli soil for moral victory points, I think the sad reality is that Tehran will more than likely target places such as AIMAs around the world, killing civilians. But equally tragic is that in a month, year or decade, no one will remember these events because they lose sight of – and get lost in – the big picture. 

International & Foreign Policy

We in the West have a perspective and narrative that is presented to us in mainstream media. The world is changing, fast. The world population now stands above 8 billion people, with 2 billion of them being Muslim. In the late 1990s, the concept of BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China) was more concept than reality. Today, the world has evolved into a bipolar one; we may very well be in World War III, with the US, Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan & most EU nations on one side, and Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Lebanon on the other. 

In other worlds, the IR is not weighing its options to appease the West, but rather, as a pawn in a game of chess played by Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping – ironic/tragic, since Iran still views itself as a one-time dominant empire, competing with Turkey and Israel today to be the regional superpower (and to be fair, as much as this irritates many, Iran has emerged as the strongest player in the middle east, in no small part thanks to American miscalculations and misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, two of the seven nations the USA sought to regime change).

“We Will End States”

At the turn of the century, former NATO Supreme Commander, General Wesley Clark enumerated seven countries that America would regime change: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia… and Iran. It did so in 6 of those 7 nations. And if the neocons and cabals in George W Bush’s administration had their way, Iran would have also met the same fate; the reasons it didn’t were two-fold: for one, after trillions of dollars wasted, thousands of American soldiers’ lives lost and a million Arabs and Muslims killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, America just doesn’t have it in itself anymore.

But, it also knows Iran is no Iraq or Afghanistan. No military commander had defeated the Afghans since Alexander the Great; America toppled the Taliban post 9/11 thanks to their incredible aerial supremacy, but it could not really maintain peace and order, leaving the nation to the Taliban, along with a massive treasure trove of military equipment. Geographically, Iraq is flat desert land, easy to roll over especially in the face of a demoralized – and decrepit – military. Iran – even according to the late Shah – is a mountainous fortress… so while it’s unclear if 80 million citizens would fight to defend the regime, it’s not isolated the way it was in the 1980s when Saddam invaded. Today, it’s fair to assume that Russia and/or China would also backstop Iran in one shape or another. 

The world has changed so much, not only since the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, but since 9/11. There is a growing number of people who – especially post October 7th – reject Western hegemony that we in the West don’t realize, because we are caught up in echo chambers that reinforce whatever narratives we wish to believe in. These are perfectly natural psychological reactions, but with the fragmentation of media whereby citizens access news and information in altogether new ways, this cycle of hate and violence only sets us up for successive rounds of 9/11’s and 10/7’s.

“Do you condemn 10/7?” Yes, of course, all loss of civilian life is horrible.
“Do you condemn Hamas?” I live in Canada where they are listed as a terror organization; I condemn all groups that kill and terrorize civilians, and that includes governments. 

But the world is increasingly global, so my question is, why do a minority of countries do so? For what it’s worth, I also condemn genocides, which based on the definition and any single one of five criteria thereof, we are witnessing one now in Gaza. I raise this because while Iran prioritizes self-preservation over the well-being of its people, without a doubt, it has hijacked the Palestinian cause to win fans and followers across the world.

Gandhi said an eye for an eye and we’ll be blind. Analogously, one can limit historical timelines to suit their narrative. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict didn’t start 10/7, it was a major event & inflection point, but the issues go back even way more than 75 years, especially since Israel’s position traces its roots going back thousands of years to biblical times. 

The tension between Iran and Israel definitely did not start this Sizdah Bedar in Damascus, but because the world is increasingly locked in their positions with zero tolerance and empathy for what others feel and think, it will likely continue for years, if not decades to come.