Writer on Middle Eastern politics, Farhang Morady, writes that Iran’s military response to Israel’s escalation of the war is driven both by the need to push back against Israel and the Western powers and by its aim to assert its dominance in the region.
After a year of intense war and genocide in Gaza and the West Bank and the loss of at least 42,000 Palestinian lives, the war has entered a new phase. The assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in July 2024, followed by Israel’s military bombarding of southern Lebanon and the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah have seriously escalated the conflict.
At first, the newly elected Iranian government refrained from retaliation, actively pursuing diplomatic efforts for peace or de-escalation. However, after Nasrallah’s assassination, a failure to respond decisively could undermine their credibility both domestically and regionally.
On October 1, 2024, Iran launched approximately 200 missiles into Israel, marking a significant escalation of hostilities. This was the second missile attack by Iran on Israeli targets in 2024, following one in April. Israel claimed that it successfully used its military capability and the Iron Dome defense system to intercept Iranian missiles. However, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) countered these claims by suggesting that 90 percent of their missiles successfully reached their intended targets (TRT World). Netanyahu’s government has vowed to respond forcefully, and the Middle East has thus entered a new phase of escalating conflict throughout the region.
Some leaders of the Islamic Republic have warned of expanding missile attacks if Israel retaliates; others, such as President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, have called for calm and engaged in negotiations with regional and world powers. Araghchi, whilst visiting Lebanon and Syria, called for a ceasefire in both Gaza and Lebanon.(Middle East Eye).
I argue here that the conflict in the Middle East is a consequence of repeated interventions by Western powers and their allies on the side of Israel. The coalitions formed by Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq are a direct response to this. Iran’s role should be interpreted as a dual effort aimed both at resisting this intervention and sending a message to its rival regional powers that it intends to maintain its hegemony.
The Islamic Republic and the ‘Axis of Resistance’
The 1979 Iranian Revolution was a pivotal moment in Iran’s history, and in many ways, it transformed the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. Fuelled by Islamism, nationalism, and anti-imperialism, the Revolution was a response to decades of Western intervention and its support for the Shah and his repressive regime. In a period when secular nationalist and left-wing forces across the region were reeling from a series of defeats, the Iranian revolution inspired various movements across the Middle East, including among the Lebanese and Iraqi Shia, and later among the Yemeni movements, all of which sought to challenge repressive regimes. With the decline of the PLO, from the mid-1980s Iran played a role in inspiring Islamist currents to claim the leadership of the Palestinian movement in confronting the state of Israel.
The West and its allies, who had long depended on the Shah’s regime as one of the ‘twin pillars’ of its imperial hold on the Middle East, viewed the Iranian revolution as a direct threat to their interests. Ultimately, the Revolution reshaped the balance of power and led to heightened tensions between Iran and Western powers, especially the US, Israel and the regional monarchies.
To counter Iran’s influence, various tactics were employed. These included encouraging and supplying Saddam Hussein’s Iraq during its 8-year war with Iran, repeatedly issuing threats of invasion and ‘regime change’, and imposing harsh economic sanctions in place to this day. Despite this, Iran continued to expand its influence in the Middle East, establishing itself as a regional power, a voice for Muslims against Saudi Arabia, which had always claimed to represent them due to its control over Mecca.
During the height of the Revolution, the Islamic Republic ended relations with Israel and acknowledged the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). It increased its financial and military support to Hezbollah in Lebanon in the 1980s, which enabled it to become a strong force countering the Israeli military threat.
US intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 bolstered Iran’s position in the region. In both conflicts, Iran cooperated with the US to overthrow the [Sunni] Taliban regime, which was hostile to Iran. In the case of Iraq, aside from the 8-year war, Saddam’s challenge to Iran’s regional dominance inadvertently empowered Iranian Shia allies in Iraq. Following the Iraq invasion, Iran and the US collaborated to combat their common enemy, Al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.
Tehran also built and developed strong relationships with Shiite militias in Iraq, such as groups like Kata’ib Hezbollah, which is part of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). Although all of them exercise a degree of autonomy, these militias bolster Iran’s standing among the disaffected, ensuring its influence in Iraq’s political and military landscape. Similarly, in Syria, Iran’s support for President Bashar al-Assad was crucial in preserving the regime in the face of popular revolt, where Hezbollah also played a significant role (Morady, 2020).
Iran extends its influence
Iran’s strategic position has been significantly reinforced through the establishment of a substantial presence in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. This is commonly known as the “Shia Crescent” or the Axis of Resistance, which has bolstered Iran’s influence and extended its reach across the region.
Iran’s backing of the Houthi rebels in Yemen has extended Iran’s influence on the Arabian Peninsula, creating another point of pressure on Saudi Arabia, a key rival of Iran. The Houthis have become an important part of the Axis of Resistance, drawing Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) into a costly and prolonged conflict, which they were forced to pull out of in 2022 (The Guardian).
Though its intervention in Syria caused serious tensions with Palestinian fighters, Iran offers military and financial support to Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. These groups are primarily focused on the Palestinian cause, and Iran’s support aligns it in an anti-Israel and anti-US stance. By backing these groups, Iran positions itself as a champion of the Palestinian cause, which enhances its regional legitimacy among Arab and Muslim communities around the world.
This, in some ways, is similar to the Islamic Republic’s collaboration with Venezuela and Cuba. Despite their different political systems, they all oppose US influence and hegemony. They are united in their opposition to what they perceive as Western imperialism and capitalism, forming a shared resistance against US and Western influence.
From the vantage point of the regime in Tehran, these alliances are less driven by a mission to liberate oppressed nations than in response to external pressures on Iran and its own economic and strategic interests. Iran’s positioning against rival regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE and Turkey is shaped by a combination of historical rivalries, ideological differences, and geopolitical competition. These nations often pursue policies that run counter to Iranian interests, leading Tehran to adopt a proactive approach to strengthening its relationships with like-minded groups and governments in other countries.
Sanctions and their Implications
Since the 1979 Revolution, the United States has imposed economic sanctions to curb Iran’s political influence. This strategy has garnered support from western European countries, the Arab monarchies, and above all from Israel, and has resulted in diverse and far-reaching consequences. The Iranian economy has suffered from a sharp reduction in foreign investment and trade, seen a decline in economic growth and experienced rocketing inflation.
In the face of significant economic and political pressure, in 2015 President Hassan Rouhani’s Islamic Republic negotiated with Western powers to lift sanctions in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal. The JCPOA involved Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the US, the UK, France, China, and Russia – along with Germany – and limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the removal of sanctions.
Donald Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA in 2018. The decision was influenced by regional powers in the Middle East, particularly Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, and it led to the reimposition of sanctions on Iran. This has resulted in an ongoing economic crisis in Iran. According to official figures, the inflation rate stands at 31 per cent, with over 60 million people (comprising over 75 per cent of Iran’s 90 million population) living in poverty. The International Labour Organization estimates unemployment in Iran at 12 per cent, rising to nearly 30 per cent among the youth, 70 per cent of whom are under 38 years old. Many graduates are disheartened by the lack of opportunities for a decent life. Alarmingly, the top 20 per cent of the population owns 47 per cent of the wealth, while the bottom 20 per cent holds a mere 0.5 per cent (Morady, 2020).
Between 2020 and 2022 two major protest movements erupted in Iran in response to economic hardships and political restrictions. The movement was driven by harsh social oppression, particularly concerning gender inequality, religious imposition, and economic hardship(Rebel, 2023). The ongoing protests have starkly highlighted the significant challenge facing the Islamic Republic and underscored the depth of societal unrest among the poor and the middle classes. Even the most ardent supporters of the regime have shown disillusionment.
In the 2024 parliamentary election, there was a significant decrease in voter turnout despite the regime’s efforts to increase participation. It fell to 41 per cent, and in Tehran at only 24 per cent it was even lower. This occurred in the aftermath of the 2022 protest movement. (Ghaffari, 2024).
Following the unexpected passing of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash in May 2024, Iran found itself preparing for another presidential election. Amid the ongoing conflicts in Gaza, Yemen, and Lebanon, Iran’s presidential election featured a competition between conservative candidate Saeed Jalili, who advocated for a hardline approach against the West, and reformist candidate Masoud Pezeshkian, who supported negotiations with the West to lift sanctions. The candidates’ competition reflected growing dissatisfaction and a decrease in the legitimacy of the Republic.
From ‘Strategic Patience’ to Retaliation
On July 6, 2024, Pezeshkian emerged victorious in the second round of the presidential election, defeating the hardliner, Saeed Jalili. Official figures revealed an increased turnout of 49.8 per cent, compared to 39.93 per cent in the first round, indicating a declining appeal of the Islamic Republic. Pezeshkian received support from reformists, including former Presidents Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani, as well as former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Zarif served from 2013 to 2021 and now holds the position of Vice President for Strategic Affairs. The new administration promptly adopted a cautious approach to conflicts, particularly those concerning the ongoing wars in Palestine and Lebanon. Their strategy signifies a potential shift towards dialogue rather than confrontation, hinting at a possible improvement in relations with Western powers.
However, the assassination of Haniyeh during the presidential inauguration in Tehran, allegedly by the Israeli secret service (Mossad), has severely undermined the idea of reconciliation. Despite the gravity of the attack, Iran’s response was notably measured. Pezeshkian and Zarif employed various diplomatic strategies, including engaging in high-level discussions and delivering speeches at the UN General Assembly, to seek peaceful resolutions rather than conflict.
But the assassination of Nasrallah and the Israeli bombardment of South Lebanon made peace dialogues and reconciliation very difficult. Given Nasrallah’s central role in Hezbollah and his close ties to Tehran, Iran could no longer afford to maintain restraint. Increasing pressure from within the Axis of Resistance left the Islamic Republic with no option but to eventually launch missile strikes against Israel, marking a clear shift from strategic patience to confrontation.
Iran has transitioned from relying solely on forces like Hezbollah to taking direct military action against Israel. This marks a dangerous new phase in the ongoing confrontation, bringing both sides closer to all-out war in the volatile Middle East region. The consequences of these events threaten to involve other regional and global powers, further destabilising an already fragile geopolitical landscape.
Regional interests
Israel’s success in drawing Iran into a conflict, despite Tehran’s previous strategic restraint, can be attributed to the complex internal and external pressures facing Iran. Domestically, the diminishing legitimacy of the Islamic Republic had become a major concern for at least some of Iran’s leaders. Widespread economic hardship, largely exacerbated by international sanctions, inflation, and dissatisfaction with the political system, had created a growing divide between the government and the people. Pezeshkian’s reformist administration, initially pursuing diplomacy, is struggling to balance internal instability with external threats.
The Persian Gulf, a critical global hub of energy and finance. It holds unparalleled strategic importance due to its vast natural resources, boasting over 55 per cent of the world’s oil reserves and nearly 42 per cent of the global gas total. Its geostrategic location provides a crucial link for international trade through various choke points, such as the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz, with over 40 per cent of the world’s crude oil passing through its waters. Additionally, the income gained by energy-producing countries is invested worldwide, especially in Western countries. Apart from being vital for global economic stability, the US considers the Middle East a linchpin in its efforts to maintain global influence and secure its position in the world.
The US’s unwavering support for Israel must be understood in this context. The US was the first nation to officially recognise the provisional government of the state of Israel upon its establishment in 1948. Since then, Israel has become the largest cumulative recipient of US foreign aid, totalling approximately $310 billion in economic and military assistance when adjusted for inflation. Since October 2023, the US passed a law to provide $12.5 billion in military aid to Israel, with $3.8 billion allocated from a bill passed in March 2024
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing government have consistently targeted states that do not align with the US and Western interests. But they have also acted independently when they felt their own interests were under threat. Western leaders have called for peace in the region, but Netanyahu has simply ignored it. Recently, French President Emmanuel Macron called for an end to the sales of weapons to Israel that will be used in Gaza and Lebanon. But Netanyahu continued to framed his war on Palestinians in Gaza as ‘defending civilisation against barbarism’(Guardian, 2024).
Domestically Netanyahu faces significant political pressure due to corruption charges, ongoing conflict, and economic challenges. It is crucial for him to navigate internal challenges while pursuing strategic goals aimed at weakening Israel’s main regional rival, Iran.
Arab and Central Asian states publicly criticise Israeli actions in the West Bank, Gaza, and Lebanon, often with strong rhetoric aimed at their own domestic audiences. However, behind closed doors, some of these states are driven by a desire to counteract Iran and its allies’ influence in the region. At the same time, they fear Israel’s increasing power and influence in the region. Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey and even Qatar, are seeking to position themselves strategically amidst regional tensions, which reflects changes in the power dynamics and alliances in the Middle East.
Imperialist tensions
Russia and China have maintained relatively positive relations with Iran but have refrained from providing direct military support. Russia, in particular, has collaborated with Iran in various areas, including military technology sharing in Syria and during the Ukraine war (Aljazeera). Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin made an official visit to Tehran on September 30, just a day before Iran carried out a missile strike on Israel. The timing of the visit has sparked speculation about a potential intelligence exchange between Russia and Iran before the attack.
China and the Western powers are cautious about the conflict escalating. China imports oil from other regional countries, and an escalation could potentially increase the price of energy, harming their economies. If Iranian missiles can strike Tel Aviv, they also have the potential to cause significant damage to the oil industries in neighbouring countries, leading to disruptions in the energy infrastructure and operations around the Persian Gulf. Additionally, NATO’s indirect involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war has already caused issues for energy exports to Europe.
Tensions are intensifying as Israel, Iran, and the US compete for dominance, each seeking to establish itself as the preeminent power in the region. This struggle for hegemony has the potential to further destabilise an already volatile region and has far-reaching implications for global security.
The persistent and unyielding military operations carried out by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank, along with its recent expansion into Lebanon, have sparked widespread global protests. Despite these, western regimes have maintained their pro-Israel stance. Iran, along with the Arab regimes, have adjusted their stance based on their domestic and regional interests.
The escalation of the war could trigger more mass protests from below. These could put pressure on governments to deliver real support for the Palestinians and to listen to their own people’s fight for democratic rights and justice. The Middle East, including Iran, has a proud history of revolutions from below and now, as the violence worsens and extends, this may be what provides a real movement of resistance.
