Détente and discord: Tehran's dilemmas

The war with Israel will force hardliners and reformists in Iran to reconcile their positions

- Deepika Saraswat

Twelve days after Israel launched an attack on Iran's top military command and nuclear and ballistic missile sites, the two countries tentatively agreed to a US-backed ceasefire that may yet unravel. The US strike on Iran's three nuclear sites and US President Donald Trump's deliberate ambiguity around Washington's objectives vis-à-vis Iran — whether it wanted to end Iran's nuclear programme or force a regime change in Tehran — restricted Iran's choices. But by launching missiles into Israel, Iran signaled its readiness for a war of attrition while keeping open the option of a diplomatic off-ramp.

Iran's ruling elite now faces a reckoning over whether they should abandon their anti-American geopolitical project in favor of defending 'Iranzamin', the historical nation of Iran. The Islamist hardliners, who have dominated the security apparatus and consolidated political power by claiming security legitimacy, and the reformist liberals, who have sought to normalize Tehran's international relations, including with the West, will struggle to reconcile their visions of the future.

Many analysts have argued that the last time Iran fought such an existential war was in the 1980s with Iraq. Saddam Hussein, with the support of most of Iraq's neighbors and both the Cold War superpowers, the US and the erstwhile USSR, had invaded the newly established Islamic Republic. Iran fought the eight-year war with virtually no allies except Syria. When Ayatollah Khomeini accepted the UN resolution on a ceasefire, calling it more deadly than "drinking from a poisoned chalice", he gave up the goal of the "export of (Islamic) revolution" to preserve the new republic. Subsequently, Khomeini established the new doctrine that the system's survival was a supreme value, and above any religious or ideological concern.