Iran’s regime fights for survival

After Iran’s newly established Islamic leadership was dragged into war by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 1980, it fought, in the words of a top commander, with “empty hands”.

For the republic’s young, ideologically driven leaders, determined to export their vision of Islamic radicalism, it was a brutal reckoning: Iran’s conventional army was in disarray and faced an adversary backed by regional and western powers. 

Years later, those same leaders admitted the isolated regime was reduced to pleading with the few states that it had relations with for the most basic supplies, such as razor wire.

Yet Iran fought for eight years despite the staggering human cost, before Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the revolution’s leader, reluctantly accepted a ceasefire with Iraq — a decision he described as “drinking from the chalice of poison”.

Now Iran is facing its gravest threat since that war, as the republic is bombarded by Israel, which boasts one of the world’s most sophisticated militaries, brimming with US equipment, and whose intelligence agencies have penetrated deep inside the republic.

Once more, the stakes for the Iranian regime are existential, with Khomeini’s successor, 86-year-old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, facing the sternest test of his four-decade rule.

“It’s Khamenei’s most significant moment. He’s had many twists and turns since becoming supreme leader in 1989, but this takes the cake,” said Sanam Vakil, Middle East director at Chatham House. “His priority is regime survival — turning the tables as best Iran can. They see themselves as David against Goliath, so being able to survive is a victory for them.”

In a matter of days, Israel has decapitated the top leadership of Iran’s military, struck its main nuclear sites, bombed key energy infrastructure and sown fear across the country as drones and swarms of fighter jets conduct sorties across the republic, seemingly unimpeded. More than 200 Iranian civilians have been killed, according to Iran’s health ministry.

The regime’s intelligence agencies have been humiliated and its air defences all but spent, leaving Teran at the mercy of Israeli air forces that on Monday declared “full operational control” of the skies above the capital. Israel claimed to have hit the headquarters of the Quds force, the feared international arm of the Revolutionary Guards, and taken out scores of launchers needed to fire Iran’s missile arsenal.

Outgunned and at its most vulnerable in decades, even before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched the war on Friday, Iran has limited options to repel its arch enemy, analysts say.

Iran is also a very different society from the one that fought for its survival against Saddam’s Iraq.

The revolutionary fervour of the 1980s no longer binds the population, and unconditional support for the state is far from guaranteed. Instead, the regime is at war at a time of unprecedented public disgruntlement with the theocratic leadership, with a youthful population worn down by decades of oppressive rule, stifling US sanctions and economic hardship.

But since the Israeli bombs started falling, for many Iranians — including critics of the regime — national security has overtaken economic concerns or demands for political freedom. 

Some Iranians are openly questioning why the republic invested so much of the state’s resources in its nuclear programme and has not yet weaponised it to deter external attacks — even as its nuclear advances are Netanyahu’s pretext for the assault.

Still, many analysts and western diplomats believe the regime’s survival will not be determined by Israeli bombs, but by the dynamics within the system itself, cautioning that it is too early to predict its collapse.  

For now, the absence of a credible option to replace the regime remains the strongest deterrent protecting Iran’s rulers.

“There is no viable alternative — either inside or outside Iran — to the current system, making internal reform the only realistic path forward,” said Mohammad Atrianfar, a reformist politician and former political prisoner. 

There is no organised political opposition in Iran, and the opposition in exile is as unpopular inside the republic as the Islamist leadership, experts say. 

“Even internally within the regime, they probably see benefit in closing ranks and sticking together rather than turning against one another,” said Ali Vaez, Iran expert at think-tank Crisis Group.

Referring to the two US-led wars against Saddam, he added: “I think this is more Iraq 1991 than Iraq 2003 in the sense that the regime will be hollowed out, but I really doubt that it will collapse.” 

But Vaez said the regime had few good options to try to navigate through the conflict and minimise damage. Given the lack of an obvious exit ramp, Vaez said Iran’s “only choice” was to continue tit-for-tat strikes in the hope that rattled energy markets might prompt US President Donald Trump to “pull the plug” on Israel.

After the experiences of the Iraq war — which still weighs heavily on the regime’s psyche — Iran focused on domestic missile and drone manufacturing, and on training and arming regional militants that it could use against its better-equipped enemies in asymmetrical warfare.

But in the 20 months since Hamas’s October 7 attack, Israel has dealt a string of devastating blows against Tehran’s key proxy, Lebanese movement Hizbollah, and has destroyed much of Iran’s air defences during two rounds of tit-for-tat strikes on the republic last year.

Despite the uneven odds, Iran’s leadership, often described as a blend of radical ideology and calculated pragmatism, is vowing to match fire with fire, believing that Netanyahu’s ultimate goal, with the US’s backing, is the total destruction of the regime.

But with the regime’s survival instincts on display, foreign minister Abbas Araghchi also hinted that Tehran would be willing to accept a diplomatic resolution to the crisis at some juncture. 

While praising the role of the armed forces, he said on Sunday that Tehran would seek “to translate the outcomes of these courageous actions into peace in the diplomatic scene”.

Saeed Laylaz, a Tehran-based analyst, said Khamenei, the ultimate decision maker, was “caught between two very difficult choices”. Iran could either agree to a deal with the US to give up its nuclear programme, “which would be capitulation”, or continue fighting, “which is not a realistic option”.

“This time, we are in a war that Nato has waged on Iran through Israel to force the Islamic republic to surrender,” he said, alluding to Iranian suspicions that Israel’s assault is backed by the US and European powers.

Iran was initially stunned by the suddenness and ferocity of Israel’s initial strikes, which involved about 200 Israeli war planes, and killed at least 17 senior commanders of the Revolutionary Guards — the republic’s most powerful force that would spearhead any response to outside aggression.  

However, the regime’s Iran-Iraq war veterans regrouped in less than 24 hours, launching a first wave of ballistic missiles that not only sent a message to Israel but also showed Iranians that the military had not collapsed.

In the days since, Iran has followed this with further missile barrages. At least one struck close to the Israeli defence headquarters in the heart of Tel Aviv, and another hit a refinery complex in Haifa, damaging pipelines and transmission lines. Residential areas have also been hit, with Iran’s attacks killing at least 23 Israeli civilians, according to Israel.

“Understanding Iranian thinking is important — even if three missiles get in, that’s a victory,” said Chatham House’s Vakil.

So far, Iran has avoided escalating beyond Israel. It has not yet carried out threats to strike US military bases in the region, if it came under attack, or disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, through which almost a third of the world’s seaborne oil passes, or to target energy facilities in neighbouring Gulf states.  

Analysts say that is partly to avoid drawing the US into the war, with Iran wary of inflicting further damage on itself, and partly because it wants to maintain improved relations with rival Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. 

“They would like to keep this contained, and I think their aim is to resist as long as they can while looking for off-ramps when they appear,” Vakil said. “There needs to be some kind of stalemate declared, or a lowering of tensions, or a back-channel agreement to find a way to climb down.”

But for now, that is out of Iran’s control. 

“We’re not there yet, because clearly Netanyahu has bigger objectives,” Vakil said.