While most Iranians support Hezbollah in its war against Israel , there is real debate in Iran as to how the crisis will impact national interests. In this regard, the conflicting sentiments of Iranian citizens and moderate and conservative elements in government have produced a hesitant and ambiguous official policy toward the war.
As the conflict drags on, Iranian officials will continue to support Hezbollah with belligerent rhetoric and furtive attempts to smuggle weapons into Lebanon . However, Iran is unlikely to send troops or seek to enlarge the conflict. Rather, Iran is eager to find a negotiated solution that preserves Hezbollah’s ideological victory of resistance and its military capability as a proxy force.
Conflicting Viewpoints
A significant portion of the Iranian public is frustrated over the government preoccupation with Hezbollah’s war against Israel. The public perception is that Tehran’s energy and capital has been focused on foreign policy at the expense of domestic needs. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected on a populist platform, yet rampant corruption, unemployment, and economic weakness have persisted under his administration. Most Iranians commiserate with the struggle of their Shiite brethren in Hezbollah, yet they quote a proverb that prioritizes Islamic allegiance: “We should save our own house first and then save the mosque” (source).
The moderate element within the Iranian government fears the actions of Hezbollah–internationally perceived as Tehran’s proxy–have incriminated Iran and legitimized the US portrayal of it as an ambitious, regional menace. In turn, this perception will strengthen the position of UN Security Council countries opposing the Iranian nuclear program and increase the likelihood of UN-authorized economic sanctions that will debilitate an already suffering economy. Furthermore, regardless of how the conflict concludes, Hezbollah’s capability as Iran’s military deterrent to Israel has been diminished; the organization’s freedom of action will be constrained by international and Lebanese public opinion in the future (source).
To the conservative mindset, the Israeli military offensive against Hezbollah is a US proxy war against Iran. The US has allowed Israel to target Iranian offensive assets—Hezbollah and Hamas –as preparation for launching strikes against Iranian nuclear sites. Indeed, the hardline element views the war as evidence that the only viable military deterrent against American-Zionist aggression is a nuclear weapon. In addition, while conservatives agree with the moderates’ assessment that the prolonged conflict has degraded Hezbollah military capability, the organization’s effective resistance against Israel has enhanced Iran’s regional power. Namely, Arab states seeking Hezbollah consent on a ceasefire must work through Iran.
Working Toward a Ceasefire
Mixed sentiments in Iran contribute to the government’s halting, official position that wavers on its degree of involvement and influence over the conflict. However, in the near-term, Iran’s goal is to end the crisis without disarming Hezbollah and keep its proxy force in position north of Israel. Conservative officials will continue to issue statements calling for the destruction of Israel but understand an immediate cessation of hostilities is the best chance to achieve an increasingly daunting task: preserve Hezbollah arms and armed status.
