Neither Iran nor Israel will instigate a long war that sees the two go head-to-head directly. Every surface-level indication that points to the opposite is nothing more than "political voodoo." That much is obvious to anyone who has read between the lines of their statements.
It seems that both sides now know the other’s strengths. After they clashed in April, Iran called its attack "True Promise!" Since then, Israel has been convinced that the "Iranian power" is far more limited than its propaganda suggested, and Tehran understood that "wiping Israel off the map" is nothing but a slogan that only the naive take seriously.
The two sides will fight "by proxy" and on others’ territory. This limited war will not have a strategic impact and change the rules of the game, and Arabs and some of their homelands will be its victims.
Many in the Arab media have focused on the details of Haniyeh’s assassination in Tehran, and some of the interpretations have bordered on fantasy. Others have not bothered understanding and analyzing the implications. Israel is not "Iran’s perpetual enemy," while Israel’s hostility to Tehran stems only from the latter’s support for "Iranian proxies" that pose a major or minor "inconvenience" to the Jewish state and to international trade.
The fact is that the Iranian regime is engaged in a constant balancing act between "the needs of state" and "revolutionary necessities," which is not easy. Indeed, interests and powers have emerged, and the current Iranian regime has established institutions for both parties. Both "champion the republic" in public. Behind the scenes, however, their agendas are contradictory, and they are constantly clashing because neither can escape from the other.
There is also a third camp in Iran. It does not fall into this difficult binary between hardliners and "reformists." Some elements of this camp are organized into "domestic and external" opposition groups, and others are not politically organized. This camp represents the broadest segment of Iranian society, and it includes people of all ethnicities and from all regions, openly or secretly demanding a modern state. They want Iran to develop, offer a modern education, and live in harmony with the international community.
The "revolutionary necessities" camp has fostered interests that are difficult to disregard. Thus, the regime makes strenuous efforts to "mobilize sentiments" so as to avoid angering these ideologues, especially under critical circumstances, as we have seen following the recent assassination of Haniyeh. To satisfy this camp, strongly worded statements are issued. In truth, though, the regime has become a prisoner of its slogans, as has happened and is happening in totalitarian states.
A call was made for "consultations" on a response following the Haniyeh assassination. The Iranian state consulted with several militias: the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and armed groups in Iraq.
This is a strange and unprecedented alliance. On one side, we have a state with borders recognized by the United Nations, ambassadors in most countries of the world, and a central government, which has a responsibility to comply with international law. On the other side, we have militias classified internationally as "terrorists," with all the negative implications that come with this label, especially in terms of international law. Not only that, their legitimacy is also disputed within their countries - Hezbollah is not Lebanon, nor are the Houthis Yemen! Not even the armed groups in Iraq represent the country.
All of these countries have governments, some that are relatively effective and others that are symbolic, but these are all governments recognized by countries of the world. The militias operate autonomously of these governments and undermine the state, in order to allow the alliance to keep exploiting their homelands. All of these demonstrates that Tehran is unwilling to directly engage military, and this is not a new policy
Tehran incited the Al-Aqsa Flood under the illusion of "unity of arenas," which some simpletons took seriously. After the clashes and the mass slaughter in Gaza, it stood idly by, with the exception of a few missiles launched from southern Lebanon, as well as some "political voodoo" and boisterous slogans.
The Arabs are paying for Iran’s posturing with their blood, as we are seeing in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq. The Iranian people have also paid dearly, in resources and lives. This policy is fueling discontent in Iran and strengthening the opposition, as it deprives the Iranian people of their right to a decent life, economic development, political stability, and good relationships with their neighbors and the world.
As long as we remain the "labyrinth" of selling illusions, our region will sadly never know stability!
A final word: the most consequential developments do not play out in public, but in the "closed back rooms," and the negotiations are in full swing!
