For many observers, the intense animosity between Iran and Israel seems perplexing. They don’t share borders, compete for resources like oil or water, and despite Iran being a Muslim-majority nation, several other Muslim countries in the region have normalized or are improving relations with Israel. This begs a fundamental question: Why Does Iran Hate Israel with such intensity?
To delve into this complex issue, we turn to the insights of Colonel (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman, a colleague at Shalem College and a distinguished expert in Israeli national security. Dr. Lerman, who previously served as deputy director for foreign policy and international affairs at the National Security Council in the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, and held senior positions in IDF Military Intelligence for over two decades, offers a comprehensive explanation rooted in ideology, history, and identity.
The Ideological and Historical Roots of Iranian Hostility
Dr. Lerman emphasizes that the conflict is not driven by traditional geopolitical or economic factors. “Israel has not taken a sheep from the Iranian people,” he states, highlighting the absence of territorial disputes or economic rivalry. Instead, the core of the conflict lies in a potent combination of ideology and historical identity. This “lethal combination” fuels a sense of mission within the Iranian regime to confront and ultimately dismantle Israel.
The 1979 Iranian Revolution, which brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power, was pivotal. It was born from a hybrid ideology, influenced by modern totalitarian political thought, similar to Bolshevik, fascist, and Nazi movements, promising radical societal and global change. This revolutionary fervor resonated across parts of the Muslim world, including Sunni movements like the Muslim Brotherhood.
However, the Iranian revolution incorporated a uniquely Shia dimension. Influenced by thinkers like Frantz Fanon, who wrote about the global divide between the “masters” and the “wretched of the earth,” this resonated with the historical Shia narrative of grievance. Shia Islam, unlike Sunni Islam, carries a deep-seated sense of historical injustice, stemming from the early days of Islam.
The Shia Grievance and the Messianic Element
This historical grievance is central to understanding the Shia worldview. While Sunnis believe in the legitimacy of the historical succession of Islamic leadership, Shias believe that leadership should have rightfully belonged to Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, and his descendants. Ali was briefly the fourth caliph, but Shia Muslims believe he was unjustly overthrown, and that his lineage, including his son Hussein, who was killed in the Battle of Karbala, were the rightful successors.
This historical narrative instills a sense of perpetual victimhood and a desire to rectify past injustices. Dr. Lerman points out a “streak of messianic thought” within Shia tradition, where there’s an expectation of a future correction of historical wrongs. This contrasts with the Sunni perspective, which tends to sanctify the existing historical order. The Shia historical narrative, combined with modern revolutionary ideology, creates a potent mix. Khomeini, during his exile, synthesized this cosmic sense of grievance with a vision of a revolutionary new world order.
From Friendship to Enmity: Israel in the Iranian Revolutionary Vision
Historically, Iran under the Shah had a positive relationship with Israel. In the 1950s, an alliance known as the “Trident,” comprising Israel, Turkey, and monarchical Iran and Ethiopia, was formed to counter Arab nationalist movements, particularly Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt and the Ba’athist regimes in Syria and Iraq. These movements, advocating pan-Arabism and often hostile to Israel, were seen as a common threat.
However, the landscape shifted dramatically in the late 1970s. Egypt, a major Sunni Arab nation, signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979. This, coupled with the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the same year, reshaped regional dynamics.
The Iranian revolutionaries viewed the Egyptian-Israeli peace as a betrayal. In their eyes, Sunni Arab regimes, which had once championed revolutionary causes, had “surrendered” to the existence of Israel, a state they perceived as an illegitimate entity imposed by the West. Iran positioned itself as the true revolutionary force, committed to dismantling the existing international order and destroying Israel, which they viewed as a central component of that order, a “Zionist entity” and a “piece of fiction.”
Remains of the Israel-Iran friendship: The Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline, a testament to past cooperation.
Domestic Legitimacy and the Anti-Israel Stance
Dr. Lerman argues that after over four decades of the revolution, the commitment to destroying Israel, along with the pursuit of nuclear weapons, has become one of the few remaining pillars of legitimacy for the Iranian regime. The revolution, instead of bringing prosperity and purity, has resulted in economic hardship, corruption, and social issues for many Iranians. Iran, once wealthier than Turkey, now lags behind its neighbor in economic terms.
The regime’s narrative hinges on the idea that their suffering is part of a larger struggle against the “international order” and that ultimate vindication will come with regional hegemony, nuclear power status, and the “liberation of Jerusalem” through the destruction of Israel. This anti-Israel stance serves as a rallying cry and a means to distract from domestic failures.
Iranian Public Opinion and Skepticism
While the regime relentlessly promotes its anti-Israel ideology, there are indications of public skepticism within Iran. Dr. Lerman points to demonstrations in recent years where Iranians have voiced discontent with the regime’s focus on the Palestinian cause and its financial support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Slogans questioning why Iranians are “paying the price” for a conflict that doesn’t serve their interests have emerged.
While it’s difficult to gauge public opinion accurately in Iran, there are signs of pro-American sentiment and a weariness with the regime’s propaganda. Dr. Lerman believes that if the regime were to fall, it would likely happen abruptly, similar to the collapse of other authoritarian regimes.
The Iran Nuclear Deal and Perceptions of Capitulation
The discussion then turns to the Iran nuclear deal. Dr. Lerman questions why Iran would engage in a deal with the United States, seemingly moderating its stance against Israel. However, he argues that the Iranian leadership doesn’t perceive the deal as a compromise but rather as a Western capitulation to their terms.
In the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran managed to secure international acceptance of its uranium enrichment program, which Dr. Lerman describes as clearly military in nature. They obtained significant sanctions relief without dismantling their nuclear infrastructure, merely agreeing to delay its weaponization. From the Iranian perspective, this was not a concession but a strategic pause, a decade being a relatively short timeframe in their historical view.
Dr. Lerman expresses concern that the current attempts to revive the Iran deal might further validate this Iranian perception of Western weakness. He questions whether the West is truly prepared to enforce stringent measures and dismantle Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The Danger of a Nuclear Iran and Israel’s Response
Dr. Lerman is critical of the idea of containing a nuclear Iran, referencing the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). While MAD might appear stable in theory, he argues it’s inherently unstable, even between rational actors like the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, citing near-miss incidents as evidence.
He uses an analogy from George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” to illustrate the dangers. In a scenario where Israel is forced to take military action against Iranian proxies, a nuclear Iran, even if not explicitly initiating a nuclear strike, could embolden its proxies and escalate regional conflicts under the shadow of its nuclear deterrent. Living under the constant threat of Iranian proxies, under an Iranian nuclear umbrella, is an unacceptable prospect for Israel.
Dr. Lerman emphasizes that Israel views a nuclear Iran as an existential threat and believes that the current or potential Iran deal is insufficient to address this threat. He argues that Israel’s response should be to clearly communicate to the US and the international community that it will not be bound by an agreement it deems inadequate and that it reserves the right to take unilateral action to defend itself, including military options against Iranian nuclear facilities or scientists.
He highlights the current Israeli government’s approach of maintaining a consistent stance on the Iranian nuclear threat, similar to previous administrations, but avoiding overt political alignment within the US, aiming for a bipartisan understanding of Israel’s concerns. Ultimately, Dr. Lerman asserts that Israel must maintain its freedom of action and make it unequivocally clear that it will not allow any agreement to compromise its security.
Conclusion: A Complex and Enduring Animosity
In conclusion, the intense hatred Iran harbors towards Israel is not rooted in conventional geopolitical disputes but rather in a complex interplay of ideology, historical narratives, and domestic political calculations. The Iranian regime’s anti-Israel stance is deeply intertwined with its revolutionary identity, its Shia worldview of historical grievance, and its need for domestic legitimacy. Understanding these multifaceted roots is crucial to grasping the enduring nature of this animosity and the challenges it poses to regional stability and international security. The specter of a nuclear Iran further exacerbates these challenges, making the need for vigilance and robust countermeasures all the more critical.
