The Deadly Tango of Netanyahu and Khamenei

Exactly ten years ago, in an article titled “The Political Tango of Netanyahu and Khamenei” published in Open Canada, I noted that although there may seem to be no two political leaders who hate each other more than these two, at the same time, they are deeply reliant on one another to cover up the chaos they’ve each created within their own countries. Now, ten years later, this dance continues, still with the same theme, but now with a much more dangerous and deadly rhythm, and for Khamenei at least, it has reached a decisive turning point.

The Context of the War

Without delving into the historical details of this conflict, it is very clear that Israel was deeply angered by the 1979 revolution and the fall of the Pahlavi regime, its most important regional ally. The Islamic Republic, pursuing its reactionary policies and ideological-religious expansion, soon designated Israel as one of its main enemies and officially called for its destruction. This stance, which had little to do with supporting the Palestinian movement, was the greatest gift to the Zionist right-wing and Jewish fundamentalists. During Ahmadinejad’s presidency, Israelis even publicly claimed he was “God-sent.”

It’s no exaggeration to say that the most extreme and reactionary government in Israel’s history, currently in power, is in part a byproduct of Iran’s ruling Islamic fundamentalist policies. The Islamic regime’s creation of proxy forces like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq, and its influence over groups like Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen, all served to expand this reactionary agenda. As these activities intensified, so too did the strength of Israel’s right wing. Netanyahu, like his dance partner in Iran, has been the longest-serving leader, holding the position of Prime Minister across three separate terms, totalling about 21 years. He has skillfully exploited the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy to strengthen Zionist right-wing politics, weaken progressive Israeli forces, and simultaneously deliver harsh blows to progressive Palestinian movements.

Besides strengthening proxy groups across the region, the Islamic Republic aggressively advanced its controversial nuclear and missile programs, giving Netanyahu and his extremist faction the perfect excuse to portray Iran as an “existential threat” to Israel and rally international Zionist forces and pro-Israel lobbies, especially in the US, against Iran.

As for Zionist policy, from the start it has revolved around two core objectives: territorial expansion and population replacement by displacing Palestinians, bringing in Jewish immigrants from elsewhere and expanding settlement construction in the West Bank. To justify these aims, right-wing extremist Zionists have continually needed to beat the drum of existential threat. After overcoming the Palestinian movement and several wars with the neighbouring Arab states, and with no real danger remaining from those fronts, they required a seemingly powerful new enemy to maintain momentum through fear. The establishment of the Islamic Republic created that perfect enemy.

Indeed, the fundamentalist Hamas movement in Gaza, which Israel itself played a role in creating and which later came under the Islamic Republic’s influence, became a symbol of this “existential threat.” The surprise and brutal 7 October 2023 attack on Israel created the perfect opportunity for the ruling right-wing in Israel to engage in the mass killing and wholesale destruction of Hamas and Gaza itself. At the same time, Israel effectively dismantled Hezbollah in Lebanon and even set the stage for the fall of Bashar al-Assad, Iran’s main regional ally.

In response to losing its proxies, the Islamic Republic doubled down on its nuclear and long-range missile policies. Netanyahu repeated the same claim he made 12 years earlier, back then using a ridiculous cartoon of a bomb, asserting that Iran was nearing the capability to produce a nuclear weapon, this time again without providing any evidence.

But Netanyahu’s government now faces a major contradiction in its strategy: On one hand, the Islamic Republic serves as the perfect scapegoat, enabling fear politics and territorial ambitions, making its survival strategically useful for Israel. On the other hand, it poses a potentially serious threat.

With Trump’s rise to power, despite being Israel’s biggest supporter, things have grown more complicated. Because he promised his “MAGA” base not to engage in new wars, Trump expressed a readiness to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program. Sensing an opportunity, Netanyahu and his allies, having largely neutralized Iran’s proxies, seized the moment and, with Trump’s approval, launched a surprise and deeply humiliating attack on the Islamic Republic to prevent any deal from taking shape. The Islamic Republic’s retaliatory missile strikes on Israel created serious problems for the country. This was followed by the surprise bombing of the three main nuclear sites by the US, the pre-announced retaliatory attack on the Al Udeid US base in Qatar, and finally the “ceasefire”.

The ‘What Will Happen Next’ Puzzle

The main question now is: “What will happen next?” This question is mainly directed at the Islamic Republic, and specifically, its Supreme Leader. As for Israel, its direction seems relatively clear for at least the next few years in that Israeli right-wing factions will continue pushing their reactionary policies. However, Israel’s future doesn’t look promising. If progressive forces in Israel remain passive, Israel’s future could resemble that of today’s Iran: a religious fundamentalist regime, which is another discussion altogether.

As for Iran, many questions remain: Will the war resume, and will the US become directly involved again? Will the Islamic Republic enter negotiations with the US and accept humiliating terms? In either scenario – but to different degrees – the regime faces serious challenges. Will there be changes in the regime’s leadership? And, what will the Iranian people do? While definitive answers are unavailable at this moment, it is essential to identify the main pieces of the puzzle and begin assembling them. 

These key components – both domestic and international – are: the Islamic Republic regime, the Iranian people, the opposition, and foreign powers. Each of these is composed of smaller, non-monolithic factions and examined below.

1. The Islamic Republic Regime

At the top of the Islamic Republic sits a clerical/military/economic oligarchy. A segment of this leadership is deeply religious, devoted to Vali-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), and genuinely believes in the imminent appearance of the Mahdi (the Twelver Shia Messiah), seeing the current time as an “apocalyptic era” signalling his return. These people are not concerned with losing current privileges; instead, they await heavenly rewards. Some see Khamenei’s leadership as a proxy, while others support alternative candidates like Mehdi Mirbagheri or Ali Yaqubi. It’s safe to assume their istikhara (prayer-based decision) has turned out “favourable” for continuing the war until Israel is destroyed. Traffic to the Jamkaran (a well near the holy city of Qum, where they believe Mahdi resides) is likely busy these days!

Beyond this group, a large portion of the regime’s oligarchs are deeply worried about their political and economic standing. Indeed, the regime has spawned a massive capitalist class among clerics, military leaders, major merchants, and their families. Chaos in Iran threatens even the monopolists and profiteers who currently benefit from the country’s failing economy, as they have much to lose. This group, along with the so-called regime’s reformists, are certainly opposed to anarchy and regime collapse. The question is whether they will remain passive and let the Supreme Leader carry on, or whether they’ll act, perhaps by pressuring him to step down, or even sending him for a swim in a pool (a dark reference to past suspicious deaths in Iran).

2. The Iranian People

A sizable segment of the population, due to religious beliefs or dependence on various regime-funded religious foundations (such as the Imam Khomeini Relief Foundation, Martyr Foundation, etc.), will follow whatever the regime’s top leadership decides.

But the majority of Iranians – young people, women, the new middle class, the working class, political prisoners, and retirees, while not opposing regime change, also fear chaos and disorder. They have witnessed the disastrous cases of the US involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Indeed, Iranian civil society, though currently suppressed, remains visible in emerging organizations and their progressive declarations.

3. The Opposition

“Opposition” is a meaningful word: it refers to a political force capable of forming a shadow government. In Iran’s case, there is no true opposition and regime critics are almost entirely based abroad. But what opposition there is can be divided into somewhat distinct groups, visualized in a biplot three-dimensional matrix: Right vs. Left, Secular vs. Religious, and Inactive vs. Extremist.

In the right–secular–extremist corner, are the monarchists, led by Reza Pahlavi, the former crown prince, and his wife. This group hopes to restore the monarchy in Iran with US and Israeli support. On the left–secular–extremist side, radical socialist groups are advocating for immediate socialism under working-class leadership. The left–religious–extremist quadrant includes the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq), who hope to bring their exiled hidden leader back with American and Israeli help.

Each of these categories also includes moderate left, liberals and secular religious (Melli-Mazhabi) who could potentially collaborate against the regime, but so far, no serious efforts toward unity have emerged.

In the right-religious camp, some former insiders of the regime might, under certain circumstances, align with opposition forces. Overall, this fragmented opposition plays no real role in shaping upcoming transformations, although it will enter the scene if the regime weakens or falls.

4. Foreign Powers

In today’s US power structure, two competing voices have Trump’s ear: One camp focuses inward, opposes US military intervention – even in support of Israel – and is quietly anti-Semitic. The other camp is pro-Israel and favours a US military presence worldwide. Which of these will ultimately shape US policy on the Iran-Israel war remains to be seen, although it seems the pro-Israeli camp has so far succeeded in convincing Trump and dragging the US into the war against Iran.

European powers, though fully supportive of Israel, have no interest in prolonging the war or toppling the Islamic Republic, fearing regional escalation. However, with recent developments, including the Islamic Republic’s decision to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, and threats by a venue closest to the Supreme Leader, a sort of Fox News of the Islamic Republic, demanding the detention and execution of the IAEA head, Rafael Grossi, the three major European powers, Britain, France and Germany, are considering triggering a snapback mechanism, which would reinstate UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

Russia, which has a 20-year strategic cooperation agreement with the Islamic Republic, benefits from the Iran-Israel conflict because it diverts global attention from the Ukraine war. At the same time, it wants to preserve its ally and wants to try to act as a mediator to boost its international standing.

China, which signed a 25-year comprehensive strategic partnership agreement with the Islamic Republic in 2021, has so far remained completely silent and has cleverly taken no position other than condemning Israel’s attack, but is deeply concerned about the situation. As the world’s largest oil importer, China unofficially imports about 15 percent of its oil from Iran, and more than 50 percent of the oil from other exporters is transported to China through the Strait of Hormuz.

Neighbouring Arab countries, previously hostile to Iran’s policies, now want the war to end quickly and avoid a regional escalation.

Possible Scenarios for the Future

Moving forward, several scenarios have been floated as to how the future of Iran will play out. On one hand, the Islamic Republic, despite having done nothing but humiliate the Iranian people, now claims that the people will fully support the regime. On the other hand, Netanyahu expects Iranians to rise and pave the way for a friendly government. Both expectations are completely baseless.

If the war resumes, especially with deeper US involvement, Iran will see its infrastructure, industry, and cities increasingly destroyed. The economy will collapse, poverty will deepen, and the result will be chaos, with no prepared popular force ready to take over. This is the most dangerous scenario, particularly for the Iranian civil society. Certainly, the fantasies of the Pahlavis (the Royalists) and the Rajavis (the MEK) that they will seize power with US or Israeli help are also utter delusions. Regime change by a foreign power cannot be achieved through airstrikes alone; it requires ground forces. In Iraq, after the US bombed everything into ruins, it entered on the ground. But neither the US nor Israel is willing to launch a ground war against a much larger Iran.

In the likelihood of humiliating negotiations with the Americans, offering major concessions, the Islamic regime would be severely weakened, but not collapse. Sanctions relief could even provide it with enough breathing room to continue its corrupt and repressive rule. No doubt, the regime will take advantage of the situation to further suppress civil society. It has already expanded detentions and executions, increased pressure on Baha’is, Jews, and other religious minorities, and shamelessly expelled hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees, accusing them of being enemy agents. The way the regime treated political prisoners in the notorious Evin Prison – whose entrance gate and visiting site were bombed by Israel for reasons that remain unclear – is yet another indication of the continuation of its brutal policies. Security forces rushed in, forcibly chained the prisoners together, and transferred them to other prisons lacking proper facilities. 

Indeed, one of the main casualties of Israeli-US attacks on Iran has been the democratic movement within civil society, which demonstrated its vigour during the Women, Life, Freedom uprising. Despite all this, compared to the more dangerous alternative of chaos and anarchy, this scenario might also open the door to a renewed wave of civil resistance.

A Progressive Stance

The proper response in this deadly tango is to condemn both sides of this war – Israel and the US as its initiators, and the Islamic Republic as its enabler. Iran’s salvation depends on the fall of the Islamic Republic and its replacement with a secular, democratic, and progressive republic. This will not be accomplished by foreign powers, although the international community should be encouraged to support the democratic movement of the Iranian people. Given the humiliating defeat and apparent weakness of the Islamic regime in Iran, the prospects for civil society movements replacing it with a secular, democratic and progressive state must be encouraged.

—

Editor’s note: A previous version of this article was published in The Bullet.