The recent attacks orchestrated by Tehran-backed militias have raised concerns about the Iranian regime’s enduring terrorist agenda and its potential to spark a full-blown conflict in the volatile Middle East. However, countering the regime’s aggressions does not necessarily lead to war, contrary to the narrative woven by the Iranian regime itself, as highlighted by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) in a recent article.
The Iranian regime’s survival hinges on two critical pillars: suppressing dissent at home and spreading terrorism and warmongering abroad. By supporting proxy militias, the regime aims to expand its influence strategically in regions such as Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and North Africa, while maintaining plausible deniability. However, this reliance on proxy forces reveals an intrinsic weakness and vulnerability.
“The regime’s true military capabilities are constrained, and its dependence on proxy forces underscores an intrinsic weakness and vulnerability,” states the NCRI. Despite its grandiose displays of military might and rhetoric, the regime has not retaliated against attacks on its forces and commanders in Syria and Lebanon, suggesting a reluctance to engage in direct confrontation.
Moreover, the Iranian regime’s rhetoric often contradicts its actions. While it spends billions of dollars on nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, its response to attacks on its forces has been notably restrained. This lack of retaliation has fueled frustration within its ranks, interpreting it as a sign of weakness.
The regime’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei emphasized in 2018 that war is not in Iran’s interest, stating, “Because war involves two sides: we, who do not initiate conflict, and the Americans, who also refrain from starting a war as they know it would be entirely to their disadvantage.” Khamenei’s words reflect a calculated understanding that direct confrontation with Western nations would not favor the Iranian regime.
The regime’s lobbyists say that a decisive confrontation with the regime would exacerbate the crisis and push the regime into war. This is a baseless claim. In fact, historical instances have shown that wherever decisive action has been taken against the regime, it has retreated. In contrast, when confronted with a softer approach, the regime becomes more assertive, intensifying its destructive behavior.
In the face of Tehran’s provocations, the international community has occasionally demonstrated resolute action, forcing the regime to recalibrate its approach. The UK’s robust response to the seizure of Royal Navy personnel in 2007 resulted in Iran releasing the sailors after 13 days. Similarly, when Iran was suspected of attacking commercial oil tankers in 2019, the US and its allies deployed additional warships and conducted military exercises, compelling Iran to deny involvement and de-escalate tensions.
The most notable example of resolute action was the US military’s killing of Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Despite the regime’s vows of severe revenge, it refrained from directly striking US forces and instead carried out symbolic retaliatory attacks through its proxy forces. This pattern of behavior indicates the regime’s aversion to risking a direct confrontation with Western nations.
As the NCRI aptly summarizes, “The regime’s true military capabilities are constrained, and its dependence on proxy forces underscores an intrinsic weakness and vulnerability.” It is through resolute and decisive policies that the international community can force the Iranian regime to reconsider its approach and ultimately back down from its aggressive stance.
By understanding the regime’s nature and history, the international community can address the Iranian regime’s enduring terrorist agenda without igniting a full-blown conflict in the volatile Middle East. Firm and strategic actions will not herald war, but rather compel the regime to reassess its path and seek alternative means to preserve its rule.
