Rethinking the Iran-Israel Conflict in a Changing Geopolitical Landscape by Dr. Liora Hendelman-Baavur

Source: en.interaffairs.ru

Rethinking the Iran-Israel Conflict in a Changing Geopolitical Landscape

Dr. Liora Hendelman-Baavur

The enduring animosity between Iran and Israel is one of the most significant challenges in international relations. At its core is Iran’s categorical refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist, a position that goes beyond geopolitical disputes and fundamentally denies Israel’s legitimacy. This hostility is further complicated by complex regional and strategic dynamics, making the conflict appear resistant to resolution. The Iranian regime’s commitment to Israel’s elimination solidified during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, stands in stark contrast to Israel’s unwavering focus on defending its security and existence. As a result, meaningful rapprochement seems unfeasible. Yet, history shows that even the most deeply entrenched conflicts—especially those with ideological or strategic stakes—can evolve toward coexistence, though lasting peace may remain distant and unforeseeable.

The Iran-Israel conflict is distinct due to its existential dimension, as Iran's hostility toward Israel transcends typical geopolitical rivalries. While Iranian antagonism toward the United States largely stems from its policies, Iran's opposition to Israel appears to be rooted in the very essence of the Islamic Republic's identity. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has suggested that Iran might engage in dialogue with the U.S. if Washington were to respect Iran’s sovereignty and cease its interference in internal affairs. In contrast, Iran’s rejection of Israel seems to go beyond strategic considerations, manifesting in its deep involvement in the Palestinian cause despite having no direct territorial or historical stake in the conflict.

Internal debate within Iran has been growing in recent years, with voices like Sadegh Zibakalam, a prominent reformist intellectual, openly criticizing the country’s foreign policy, particularly its stance on the US and Israel. In a recent public debate, he noted that in 1979, Iran had no direct threat from Israel, yet the regime chose to adopt a policy of staunch opposition, exemplified by the chant "Death to Israel." Reflecting on this strategy, Zibakalam questions its effectiveness, asking, "Has Iran become safer after 46 years of this approach? What has been achieved?" Adding to this critique, Mohammad Javad Zarif, former Foreign Minister and current Vice President for Strategic Affairs, remarked in an August 2024 video, “The Iranian people are tired of our government being more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves.” These voices reflect a broader dissatisfaction with the ideological rigidity that has defined Iran’s stance on Israel, raising questions about the costs and benefits of its entrenched policies.

The challenge lies in whether moderate voices within Iran can challenge the dominance of hardliners, many of whom are veterans of the Iran-Iraq War or former Revolutionary Guards aligned with conservative factions. With limited exposure to Western education, this group views the West as in decline and advocates for a hawkish foreign policy to expand Iran’s regional influence. In their view, opposition to Israel is not just ideological but strategically essential for maintaining regional power, positioning Iran as the leader of the "axis of resistance" and a counterforce to Western imperialism and Zionism.

Given these entrenched dynamics, it is difficult to envision a geopolitical arrangement that could significantly soften the rivalry. Yet, history offers examples of conflicts once thought intractable that evolved toward coexistence through pragmatic shifts. The Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, while never fully resolved, saw periods of détente and conflict management. Similarly, Egypt and Israel, once fierce enemies, reached a peace agreement, though their relationship remains cold and primarily functional. These precedents suggest that, even in deeply ideological conflicts, there can be pathways to coexistence when the costs of continued hostility outweigh the benefits.

Iran’s longstanding reliance on proxy groups like Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas has been central to its regional strategy, enabling Tehran to project power and challenge adversaries without engaging in direct warfare. However, this approach has proven to be a double-edged sword. Recent escalations, including Israeli strikes on proxy forces and key figures such as Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, have not only degraded the operational capabilities of these groups but also drawn Iran into direct confrontations with Israel—precisely the scenario the proxy strategy was designed to avoid. While these proxies remain threats, they have failed to fundamentally alter Israel’s security calculus. Instead, Iran has found itself increasingly embroiled in conflicts that do not align with its immediate national interests, particularly the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Combined with domestic pressures and economic hardships, these developments highlight the limitations of Iran’s proxy strategy and may prompt its leadership to reassess its priorities and explore less confrontational approaches.

External pressure, such as that exerted during the JCPOA negotiations, has demonstrated that Iran can engage pragmatically with its adversaries when tangible benefits are at stake. The geopolitical landscape is further shaped by the return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, signaling potential shifts in American policy toward Iran. Trump’s administration is expected to revive its "maximum pressure" strategy, focusing on economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and destabilizing activities in the region. However, despite this hawkish posture, Trump’s past emphasis on reducing U.S. military presence suggests his ultimate aim will be regional stability rather than direct conflict. His administration is likely to strengthen ties with Israel and Gulf states under the Abraham Accords framework, emphasizing collective deterrence rather than unilateral U.S. involvement.

For Israel, this aligns with its bipartisan approach to countering the Iranian threat. The continued arming of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s broader "Ring of Fire" strategy, and the persistent threat of its advancing nuclear program represent existential challenges that no Israeli government can afford to ignore. These security concerns are further exacerbated by the instability in Syria, where Iran's military entrenchment has created potential flashpoints for escalation. While the incoming Trump administration may advocate for a hardline stance against Iran, the mutual goal of maintaining regional stability could open avenues for coordinated strategies aimed at de-escalation, even amidst deeply entrenched hostilities.

Recent developments, such as the renewal of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia brokered by China, show that even deeply entrenched rivalries can be managed through external mediation. While the Iran-Israel conflict is more ideologically charged, similar efforts by regional or global powers could facilitate indirect engagement or lead to a return to a “Cold War” dynamic in the Middle East, similar to the situation prior to October 7th, 2023.

Cultural and religious values within Iran, while often overshadowed by revolutionary ideology, could provide an untapped foundation for reducing hostility. Principles of interfaith tolerance and dialogue between civilizations, deeply rooted in both Islamic teachings and Iranian cultural traditions, have occasionally been referenced by Iranian leaders. These values might serve as a framework for rethinking Iran’s stance toward Israel, particularly in a future political climate that prioritizes pragmatism over ideology. A notable example is the invitation extended to an Israeli scholar residing in the U.S. to participate in an interfaith dialogue with the Iranian president in September 2024. This gesture highlights that, even amidst profound ideological divides, opportunities for dialogue and mutual engagement can emerge.

In conclusion, while the Iran-Israel rivalry remains one of the most intractable conflicts of our time, history suggests that deeply entrenched disputes can sometimes evolve toward coexistence, even if peace remains out of reach. The stakes of this conflict are immense, with the specter of all-out war posing severe consequences not only for the two nations but for the region and beyond. These risks underscore the urgency of de-escalation, which could serve as a pragmatic first step toward managing tensions. The ideological, political, and regional dynamics that sustain this conflict are formidable, but not immutable. Internal debates within Iran, the high costs of regional instability, the potential role of external mediators, and the country’s historical values all offer glimmers of possibility. Though peace may remain elusive, coexistence—rooted in a mutual desire to avoid escalation of catastrophic proportions—offers a distant but conceivable prospect.

Dr. Liora Hendelman-Baavur is a prominent scholar of Middle Eastern History and Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University. She served as the director of the Alliance Center for Iranian Studies from 2019 to 2023. Her research on Iranian modern history, particularly the late Pahlavi era, is widely recognized, and her book Creating the Modern Iranian Woman: Popular Culture between Two Revolutions, published by Cambridge University Press, received the esteemed 2022 Latifeh Yarshater award from the Association for Iranian Studies. She is also a member of Forum Dvorah: Women in Foreign Policy and National Security.