Two contrasting images have emerged from inside Iran during the current war, and another from outside it. The first shows women dressed in black mourning the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, while other women are seen ululating in celebration for the same reason. The second image shows Iranian men and women in Western capitals carrying Iranian flags, cheering and applauding the news of Khamenei’s death. That last scene recalls the celebrations of the Cuban diaspora in the United States when news spread of the death of former Cuban president Fidel Castro.
These three groups together represent Iran.
There is also a fourth image - one representing another, larger group: the silent majority, largely invisible. This means that Iran, even before the current war, was living with a deeply divided heart. One faction, ideological in nature, stands firmly with the regime. Another - both inside Iran and among exiles in Western capitals - hopes that this war will mark the regime’s end. The third group, the large “silent majority,” oscillates between criticizing the regime and fearing chaos or foreign intervention.
The problem with this last and substantial segment is its hesitation. It does not take the initiative to join any of the other factions, nor does it advance its own political vision or aspirations.
History, meanwhile, teaches us that regimes in the region do not usually fall because of military defeat in wars. Rather, they collapse through military coups or popular uprisings.
Many of us remember how the armies of several Arab regimes suffered humiliating defeats in infamous wars, yet those regimes remained in power and only fell half a century later, or more, through popular revolutions. This leads to a conclusion: even if Iran’s theocratic regime were defeated in the current war, that might not lead to its elimination, as some expect.
It could very well survive, though without the ability to intimidate its enemies in the region and beyond as it once did. Even then, it may still be capable of controlling the domestic arena. Ideological regimes, by their nature, possess a hardened security apparatus that can prevent their collapse even in the face of opposition or bitter military defeat.
The Baathist regime in Iraq remained in power for 13 years after its defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, known as Operation Desert Storm.
This leads to another conclusion: stripped of the regional arms through which it once exerted influence in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, the current Iranian regime may be forced, in order to preserve itself, to retreat into its own borders and shrink inward.
Another state may then fill the vacuum it leaves behind. In my view, that state will not be Israel. Despite its military superiority, Israel cannot fill a vacuum in an Arab or Islamic environment because it lacks popular acceptance. More likely, there will be intense competition among several Arab and regional powers.
In Israel, amid the momentum of victories for the far right, the Israeli left - across its various currents and led by the Labor Party - will find itself at a crossroads. One path leads to the abyss of political oblivion; the other leads to rediscovering itself and reclaiming the initiative.
The Israeli left’s struggle against the far-right requires all left-wing parties to adopt a new strategy, one based on self-criticism, asking the right questions in line with shifting realities, and seeking answers that allow it to confront and defeat far-right parties electorally.
Because this transformation will not happen overnight, it implicitly means that the ruling far-right coalition in Israel is likely to remain in power and continue expanding its influence. Its next battle will likely focus on seeking to occupy and Judaize the West Bank.
Such a policy will face international opposition that Israel may choose to ignore, as well as Arab resistance to normalization with it. At that point, American pressure will likely come into play, seeking to soften positions, and perhaps twist arms. Much of this, of course, depends on who occupies the White House.
The end of Iran’s regime would require several conditions to come together. Yet one thing is certain: the myth upon which it was built has been shattered against the rocks of reality. With that myth’s collapse, the pillars of the edifice constructed upon it over nearly half a century have begun to crumble. When the myth falls, the idea dies, and its historical credibility disintegrates.
The regime may still remain in place as a matter of fact. But it will exist suspended in midair, exposed to the shifting winds.
