Jerusalem: When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initiated strikes on Iran last Friday, he emphasized targeting Iran's nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles as primary objectives. The action was described as a measure to eliminate the existential threat that Iran poses to Israel, a nation Iran historically denies the right to exist. However, the recent air strikes suggest a broader agenda.
According to France24.com, Israel's attacks on Sunday included significant targets such as an Iranian foreign ministry building, the defense ministry in Tehran, and police headquarters in the city center. Additionally, on Saturday, Israel targeted the South Pars gas field, the largest natural gas reservoir globally.
Clive Jones, a professor of regional security at Durham University, explained that Israel's strategy involves prioritizing targets to significantly slow down or end Iran's nuclear program and targeting military delivery systems and the leadership controlling them. The attack on the gas field is believed to be part of this strategy, as it supplies fuel to the Iranian military's rocket programs.
Filippo Dionigi, a Middle East expert at the University of Bristol, suggested that some attacks might serve to shock the enemy and disrupt command chains to slow down Iran's response capabilities.
Veronika Poniscjakova from Portsmouth University noted that Israel's strategy, known as the Octopus Doctrine, aims directly at the regime in Iran rather than its proxies like Hezbollah or Hamas. This approach indicates a shift towards targeting the regime itself as the source of threat.
Analysts, including Shahin Modarres from the International Team for the Study of Security Verona, speculate that Israel's attacks on energy infrastructures might aim to incite social unrest within Iran by undermining trust in the regime. Civilian energy infrastructure attacks could exacerbate power cuts, further straining public trust.
The Iranian health ministry reported that 90 percent of casualties from the strikes are civilians. Strikes on political buildings and state-run TV during a live broadcast could signal to the Iranian opposition an opportunity to rise against the regime, Poniscjakova stated.
Netanyahu issued a direct appeal to Iranians, encouraging them to seize the opportunity to gain freedom. His social media message implied that Israel targets a repressive regime, signaling a desire for regime change.
The Institute for the Study of War reported that Israel's strikes on Tehran's police headquarters and intelligence ministry might erode the regime's internal security and control. However, it remains uncertain whether these actions can sufficiently weaken Iranian leadership to trigger an uprising.
Dionigi warned that external interference might provoke national pride and unity against perceived foreign threats, potentially strengthening the regime temporarily.
Jones highlighted the risk Netanyahu takes by extending beyond dismantling Iran's nuclear program. In times of conflict, citizens often rally around their flag despite discontent with the regime. For Iran, this conflict is viewed as existential, and it will employ all military resources to ensure its survival.
Modarres cautioned that Netanyahu's strategy could escalate tensions, risking higher civilian casualties in Israel and increased political pressure on his government. The outcome of this conflict could significantly impact Netanyahu's political future, depending on whether he achieves regime change or encounters a backlash.