Israel hopes for regime change in Iran

INTELLIGENCE SERVICES around the world have their attention fixed on the streets and squares of Iran’s main cities, trying to work out the size of the protests there, the numbers killed and the likelihood of Iran’s rulers falling. Israel’s spies, meanwhile, are looking farther afield, concentrating on more remote locations in the country. Increased activity around Iran’s hidden ballistic-missile launchers, which began before the current protests but has ramped up in the past two weeks, has prompted Israel to put its forces on high alert.

The devastating series of strikes that Israel and America launched against Iran and its nuclear programme seven months ago weakened the Islamic Republic’s rulers, both at home and abroad. As protests spread to more than 100 cities and towns across every province in Iran, the main threat to the Iranian regime is now domestic. But the chances of another foreign war are rising as well.

Iran could have three reasons for launching a missile attack on Israel. First, it still smarts that Israel achieved air superiority over western Iran and Tehran within the first 48 hours of the 12-day war in June. Israel, along with America, inflicted multiple blows on the regime’s nuclear and missile sites. It also used its strikes to assassinate numerous nuclear scientists and generals in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The humiliation of Tehran’s military machine may have encouraged Iranians eager to challenge the regime. For Iran’s rulers, vengeance and a restoration of deterrence is long overdue.

A second, and more immediate motive, would be hopes among some in the embattled regime that an external war with Israel would relieve some of the internal pressure by diverting energy from the incipient uprising. The war in June prompted a rally-round-the-flag effect among many ordinary Iranians, albeit one that was short-lived. The regime might hope to elicit a similar response if it attacked Israel and Israel responded.

The third reason lies in what Israeli officials term a “miscalculation.” Iran worries that Israel may take advantage of the current turmoil to launch another wave of attacks aimed at destroying the missile launchers it failed to hit in June. If there were another war, the Iranians would be determined to strike first. To prevent such a miscalculation, Israel has assured Iran, via the Russian government, that it has no intention of attacking. This is probably true, at least for now. It is not even clear that Israel has the capabilities to do so at present. It used up many of its missile-defence interceptors against the barrage fired by Iran in June and would need more time to replenish. Many American naval assets that would be needed to defend Israel are not in the region and it would take some time to move them there.

Even so, Iran may not be convinced by Israel’s assurances. When Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, met Donald Trump in Mar-a-Lago two weeks ago, he tried to persuade the American president to commit to supporting another Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic-missile programmes. That may have been bombast to keep the American president on side but at least in public Mr Trump seemed keen. “I hear that Iran is trying to build up again,” he said. “We’ll knock them down. We’ll knock the hell out of them.”

On January 9th Mr Trump continued his threats, warning Iran’s rulers that “if they start killing people like they have in the past, we will get involved. We’ll be hitting them very hard where it hurts.” If Mr Trump attacks Iran, Israeli intelligence believes that the regime will retaliate against America’s allies in the region, the Gulf states and Israel.

And so Mr Netanyahu, who has spent many years urging American presidents to take a harder line on Iran, finds himself in a unique situation: one in which he is currently urging restraint when it comes to attacks on Iran. In an interview with The Economist on January 8th he notably did not endorse the president’s threats, instead advising that “revolutions are best done from within.”

Even as the Israelis consider their options, much will depend on what happens with Iran’s protests. Two different views carry weight within the Israeli intelligence community at the moment. Some Iran-watchers believe that the Islamic Republic is entering a protracted period of internal conflict which will lead to the IRGC and the Basij, its militia, consolidating power. In that scenario, the Israeli assessment is that the likeliest result is some kind of martial law for months, if not years.

The opposing view is that even the IRGC lacks the capacity to deal with a full-blown uprising across the country and will be unable to restore order in the major cities and far-flung provinces with large ethnic minorities such as Azeris and Kurds. There is no clear alternative to the regime, in the form of an organised opposition. Israel does not believe that Reza Pahlavi, the former crown prince of Iran, who lives in America and whose name some protesters are chanting, is sufficiently influential to return to Iran and take control. In this analysis, Iran is set to fall into chaos.

Whatever the outcome of the protests, Israel’s main concern is that Iran’s remaining strategic assets, including 400kg of highly enriched uranium and long-range missile launchers, could be spirited away or fall into the hands of radical factions if profound change seems imminent. If that seemed likely, Israel and America would almost certainly strike the locations of these assets before they were lost in the fog of revolution. ■