Does Iran's anti-Israel, anti-American rhetoric just bark without biting? - Iran International

On August 27th, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, spoke to President Mahmoud Payeshkian and his cabinet, stating that dialogue with enemy countries is beneficial.

Referring vaguely to Iran's relations with the international community, particularly the United States, Ayatollah Khamenei stated that Iran should not rely on such relations, but that does not mean there is no reason to meet with enemies.

This can be seen as a kind of green light for President Payeshkian to engage with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Western countries once again regarding Iran's nuclear development program, and to engage with international dialogue partners regarding the rising tensions with Israel.

This statement seems to suggest a desire to return to the mutual deterrence that has defined the relationship between the two countries for many years, stepping away from the brink of all-out war with Israel following the assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Hanyeh in Iran in July.

However, considering how much this region has changed in the past year, this may not be an option.

In April of this year, Israel targeted the Iranian embassy in Damascus and killed members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

As a result, Iran took calculated action. Iran could not ignore Israel's attacks, and the authorities condemned it as an attack on Iranian sovereignty, but they did not want a war with Israel. As a result, Israel and its allies were able to shoot down most of the 300+ missiles and drones launched from Iran.

Nevertheless, this response was seen as a victory for Iran, demonstrating its technological capability to reach Israel, and also marking a departure from Iran's established approach of talking tough but avoiding direct confrontation.

Iran clearly crossed a threshold in April, but seems to be very anxious about the consequences.

Then, on July 31st, Hanyeh was assassinated during his visit to Iran. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied responsibility, but there is a strong perception that Israel was behind it.

This has put the Iranian leadership in a difficult situation. Hardliners are calling for retaliation to restore Iran's image as a country that can protect itself and avenge the killing of a close ally. Ayatollah Khamenei has also claimed that Israel will be punished for its actions, but the timing is for Iran to choose.

The leadership in Iranshowing weakness and damaging their position among allies and proxies in the region such as Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthi rebels in Yemen, armed Shiite groups in Iraq and Syria, etc.It is clear that they cannot show weakness or damage their position among the allies and proxies in the region.However, there are other considerations weighing heavily on their minds.

A direct response to Israelcould open the Pandora's box.It could pave the way for further direct attacks by Israel, potentially even assassination attempts targeting Iranian leaders.

This is a realistic possibility. Israel has shown a willingness to respond to any threat with force in the name of self-defense. Additionally, after Iran's missile and drone attack in April, it has demonstrated the ability to carry out precise attacks within Iran, such as retaliating against the radar system in Isfahan city.

Furthermore, such escalationposes the risk of involving the USA in the conflictがある。

The Iranian leadership is skilled in brinkmanship diplomacy. Anti-Americanism is deeply rooted in the political discourse of the political elite and shapes Iran's foreign policy. However,Iran has thus far avoidedwar with the USA..

Iran's legitimacy crisis has reached its peak, and the potential for renewed explosions is ripe. A war with Israel or the USA could ignite this tinderbox.

The Iranian leadership is facing a dilemma. It cannot retreat from its anti-Israel, anti-US rhetoric. Tehran has built a broad network, the so-called 'axis of resistance,' based on its diplomatic policy. It cannot betray this pillar of identity.

However, acting based on this can jeopardize the regime's survival. The leadership has been increasingly searching for a more precarious balance.

Hezbollah's recent engagement with Israel may be the answer. By supporting Hezbollah, Iran can claim to have inflicted pain on Israel without directly attacking itself.

The purpose is to restore the situation prior to April. This strategy aims to safeguard the ruling regime from a direct confrontation by entrusting the fighting to Hezbollah and other proxy forces, thereby avoiding a crisis to the leadership's authority and control.

However, this may be wishful thinking. This strategy might give Israel the legitimacy needed to attack Iran's targets again. And this could become a tinderbox of pent-up discontent among the people directed at the cruelty of the ruling regime.However, this may be wishful thinking. This strategy might give Israel the legitimacy needed to attack Iran's targets again. And this could become a tinderbox of pent-up discontent among the people directed at the cruelty of the ruling regime.がある。