Tehran – In the commentary, in the Middle Eastern Eye, Tel Aviv ruler unintentionally offered Iran a “strong political gift” by integrating the Iranians with a “common enemy” called Israel.
“Israel may have mistakenly provided a powerful political gift to the Islamic Republic, offering a moment of unity, a common enemy and a temporary halt of inner cleavage,” Mee said.
Below are some of the edited versions of the article:
It appears that Israel had forgotten the lessons learned from Iraq’s 1980 invasion of Iraq. Instead of inducing a change of government, it led to Iranian people gathering behind the Islamic Republic in the name of nationalism.
Israel’s recent strikes have similarly sparked a revival of nationalist sentiment, rather than supporting internal dissent.
There were public ceremonies and online tributes. Even some who once coincided with the “women, life, freedom” movement began to express solidarity with those framed as “hometown advocates.”
Israel’s attempt to divide the Iranian people from their nation backfired. The dominant response within Iran is the assembly around the flag – a phenomenon familiar to those studying the dynamics of national trauma and external threats.
On top of shape
The bottom of the foam
Official targeting has been interpreted by many Iranians as a direct attack on national sovereignty.
Israeli officials argue that their central purpose is to stall or derail Iran’s nuclear program, but the strike suggests wider ambitions.
Israel sees Iran not as a hostile state, but as a rival to regional civilizations that must contain not just its nuclear program but its political and geographical consistency.
This view has shaped decades of hidden operations, diplomatic isolation efforts, and economic sanctions. It also uses long-standing ideas and sometimes informs Iran to show its fractures to a smaller and weaker state.
Such a vision, once limited to the Washington and Tel Aviv Hawkish Policy Whitepaper, has acquired an updated currency in 2022 as a result of protests in Iran.
Feeling the opportunity, both the US and Israel amplified support for opposition groups. Among them, the exiled crown prince Leza Pallavi emerged as an iconic figure. His widely published visit to Israel and his statements openly sought coordinated support to overthrow the Islamic Republic. This convergence of opposition figures and foreign governments indicated a shift from passive solidarity to open integrity.
The Israelis argue that this is not a war against Iran, but a war against its ruler. Public campaigns have sought to connect Israeli military operations to the desires of ordinary Iranians. Diaspora figures such as Pahlavi publicly reflect this framing, calling on Iranians to help the government fall.
However, despite clear strategic communication efforts, the campaign failed to capture the domestic imagination in Iran.
What Israeli leaders and their allies underestimated were the deep-seated historical memories of Iranian people and reflexive resistance to foreign intervention. The sight of foreign military killing Iranians in Iranian soils makes people anger.
This shift is more than just a symbol. In contrast to past times of internal unrest in the past, particularly the 2019 fuel protests and the Mahsa Amini demonstrations, the level of domestic unity suggests that it has mistakenly provided a powerful political gift to the Islamic Republic.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu joined Saddam Hussein’s rank in 1980 with the decision to invade Iran.