Iran’s position in the Middle East is now one of the most complex, aggravated by the death of leader Nasrallah. Let’s try to orient ourselves together.
Iran is at a crucial crossroads in the Middle East, torn between the desire for revenge and the need to avoid a conflict that could overwhelm the country. After the killing of Hassan Nasrallah, the historic leader of Hezbollah and a central figure in Iranian strategy, a clash has broken out in Tehran between the different factions of the regime.
To explain the issue very briefly: on one side there are the hardliners, convinced of the need for a military response against Israel, on the other the moderates, who fear the devastating consequences of war. But let’s try to delve into more detail.
Immediate and strong reactions in Tehran
The news of Nasrallah’s death has deeply shaken the Iranian leadership. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei immediately convened the Supreme Security Council at his residence. For Khamenei, Nasrallah was much more than a simple ally: he considered him almost a son. This personal bond makes the decision on how to respond to the Israeli attack without compromising Iran’s already fragile internal stability even more delicate.
The fracture between the factions, which already existed, has become more acute: while the ultraconservatives, led by Saeed Jalili, are pushing for an immediate and harsh response against Israel, the moderates, led by President Masoud Pezeshkian, are trying to avoid a direct conflict that could have devastating consequences on a country already hit hard by economic sanctions.
According to the New York Times, tensions were palpable in those moments of crisis: regime hawks saw the Israeli attack as an affront that needed to be forcefully avenged to safeguard national pride, while Pezeshkian and his faction were more cautious, fearing that open warfare could further destabilize Iran.
What role does a generational divide play in this delicate geopolitical context?
The divisions within the Iranian regime, particularly between generations of the Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guards), highlight a growing identity crisis. These elite soldiers, created in 1979 to protect the Islamic regime, now find themselves at the center of a generational conflict: the young members accuse the veterans of corruption and of not being sufficiently faithful to the ideals of the Islamic Revolution. This contrast translates into a push for a more aggressive approach, especially after the killing of the Hezbollah leader, as Nasrallah was considered a strategic ally of Iran and a symbol of resistance against Israel (which we remember is the main regional enemy). On the other hand, veterans tend to support a diplomatic line, worried about the devastating consequences of an open conflict.
In this context, the moderate president Masoud Pezeshkian tries to open up international dialogue but finds himself under pressure both from the ultraconservative youth and from the need to protect Iran’s allies in the region and face economic sanctions. This debate on how to deal with Israel and international relations becomes a point of contention, reflecting the deeper malaise of Iranian society, where the new generations are demanding radical changes and solutions to a broader crisis, both economic and social, underway.
A precarious balance between hardliners and moderates
While the divisions within the Iranian regime are not new, Nasrallah’s death has intensified the confrontation between the two souls of the regime. As explained by Middle East expert Saeid Golkar, the clash is not only between moderates and hardliners but also between the different generations within the Pasdaran (the Revolutionary Guards). As already specified, the young often accuses the older ones of corruption. This is why they are pushing for a more aggressive approach, while the veterans are more pragmatic.
After the tragic genocide in the Strip, the expansion of Israeli influence in the region has manifested itself through a series of targeted attacks, not only in Lebanon, but also against militant groups in Syria and Yemen, culminating with the elimination of prominent figures such as the leaders of Hezbollah. This escalation marks a significant shift in Israel’s defense strategy, which heightens tensions in the (already tense) geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.
Pezeshkian, despite the pressure, reiterated the need to support Lebanon and Iran’s allies in the region, to prevent Israel from continuing to attack with impunity the countries of the Axis of Resistance. However, moderates, while recognizing the importance of preserving Iranian influence in the Middle East, fear that a frontal military response could plunge the country into an irreversible crisis.
An ambiguous position, embodied by the (embarrassed) leader Khamenei
Ali Khamenei now faces one of the most difficult decisions of his long time in power. Iran has always avoided direct conflict with Israel, preferring a strategy of “proxy wars” through allies such as Hezbollah and Hamas to weaken the Jewish state (i.e. a conflict in which two powers or states face each other indirectly by supporting third groups or states, allowing them to fight for their strategic interests without engaging directly in war).
However, Nasrallah’s assassination has highlighted the Islamic Republic’s vulnerability and this may require a stronger response. According to Paul Salem of the Middle East Institute, Khamenei may opt for a response however limited, such as launching missiles or a targeted attack, to avoid dragging Iran into an all-out war. It is also not excluded that Nasrallah’s death and the weakening of Hamas could push Iran to seek new tools of deterrence, including the nuclear option.
Navigating the Increasingly Turbulent Regional Context
All things considered, Iran now faces the challenge of maintaining its influence in the Middle East in an increasingly complicated environment. Recent diplomatic overtures to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries, along with dialogue with the West, may indicate that Tehran is trying to ease international pressure. However, the fate of the nuclear deal remains uncertain, and Khamenei knows that the revival of the Iranian economy depends largely on the removal of sanctions.
In the meantime, Khamenei has chosen to keep a low profile and take refuge in a safe place, probably in Mashhad. This choice reflects the cautious strategy of the supreme leader, who seeks to avoid a frontal conflict while maintaining a line of resistance against external pressure. Given the difficult times he finds himself in, this is more than understandable.
Iran in the balance
Iran is at a crucial point, balancing between a military response to the killing of Nasrallah and the need to avoid a direct conflict with Israel. Khamenei, shaken by the assassination of the Hezbollah leader, must balance the pressure of the hardliners, who demand revenge, with the fears of the moderates, who fear the consequences of an open war. His position reflects prudence, but is not without ambiguity (even if, probably, it is only a strategic calculation to preserve the regime).
The internal divisions, especially among the generations of the Pasdaran, highlight a growing identity crisis: the young are calling for a more aggressive approach, while the veterans prefer diplomacy. Pezeshkian, a moderate leader, is trying to open up international dialogue, but he remains under pressure to protect Iran’s allies in the region and seek a solution to economic sanctions.
In this context, every move will be decisive. Iran must decide whether to pursue diplomacy or adopt a more aggressive strategy, which could further isolate the country. The future of the Islamic Republic will depend on Khamenei’s ability to navigate domestic pressures and geopolitical challenges, avoiding the disaster of an all-out war, but safeguarding his influence in the Middle East.
Original article published on Money.it Italy 2024-10-01 09:20:16. Original title: Cosa farà l’Iran in Medio Oriente?
