From Ideological Animosity to Strategic Rivalry The Evolution of Iran's Perception of Israel

Key Findings:

The war in the Gaza Strip has given Iran a unique opportunity to challenge Israel across multiple fronts, reviving debate over Iran’s long-standing hostility toward Israel and how best to address it. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, anti-Israel ideology has been a core tenet of the Iranian regime. However, Israel's role in Iran’s strategic doctrine has evolved, shifting from purely ideological opposition to a perception of Israel as a direct national security threat, especially in light of Israel’s military campaigns, rhetoric, and regional countermeasures.

Iran has pursued a dual policy, balancing ideological enmity with pragmatic national interests. While it consistently opposes Israel and supports proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, it has often refrained from direct military engagement when the costs are high. For example, despite rhetorical hostility, Iran did not fully engage in the Gaza war or push Hezbollah into a large-scale conflict, underscoring its rational approach to regional strategy.

Iran views itself as situated in a hostile and unstable regional environment, surrounded by weak or failed states, foreign interventions, and terrorist groups. This perception, shaped by historical traumas such as the Iran-Iraq War (during which Iran faced global isolation and the use of chemical weapons) has fostered deep security anxieties and a defensive outlook aimed at protecting its borders and sovereignty. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and Iraq’s military weakening post-2003, the United States emerged as Iran’s primary threat due to its military presence in neighboring countries, efforts at regime change, and economic pressure campaigns. With few reliable allies and inferior conventional military power, Iran has responded by adopting strategies like "forward defense" and "strategic depth" to project power and deter threats beyond its borders.

Iran’s regional strategy intensified after three key developments: the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the 2011 Syrian civil war, and the 2014 rise of the Islamic State. These events motivated Tehran to establish the “axis of resistance” with Syria, Hezbollah, and Shiite militias to counter Western and regional adversaries. Iran’s involvement in Syria, especially in support of the Assad regime, was driven by fear of losing a crucial ally and its deterrence capability against Israel. The rise of ISIS further heightened Iran’s insecurity, leading it to deepen its military presence in Iraq and Syria.

Iran’s regional ambitions, however, are not solely defensive. Tehran has used regional upheavals as opportunities to expand its influence across the Arab world, build a loyal network of proxies, and secure strategic depth to counter threats from the US and Israel. This has included deploying weapons, building military infrastructure, and supporting armed groups beyond its borders. The “forward defense” doctrine reflects this proactive approach—neutralizing threats far from Iran’s borders to avoid direct conflict at home.

Israel, in response, has intensified its own campaign—known as the “campaign between wars”—targeting Iranian arms transfers and military entrenchment in Syria and Lebanon. As Israel began directly striking Iranian assets and publicly acknowledging responsibility, Iran came to view Israel as its principal adversary. Iran believes Israel is attempting to encircle it by strengthening ties with neighboring states like Azerbaijan and supporting Kurdish factions, further aggravating Tehran’s strategic concerns.

Iran has consistently portrayed its nuclear program as peaceful and religiously forbidden to be weaponized. However, growing threats from Israel, particularly covert operations like cyberattacks and assassinations of nuclear scientists, have heightened Iran’s sense of vulnerability. While Israeli actions may have delayed Iran’s nuclear progress, they have also led Tehran to accelerate uranium enrichment, especially after incidents like the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh and sabotage at Natanz. Iran’s perception that the West would continue to apply pressure regardless of nuclear compliance was reinforced by cases like Libya’s disarmament and North Korea’s survival, strengthening Tehran’s resolve to maintain nuclear leverage. The outcome of current regional conflicts, such as the war in Gaza, may also influence whether Iran shifts from nuclear restraint to pursuing an actual weapon, particularly if it believes its network of regional proxies is no longer sufficient for deterrence.

Domestically, Iran's regime is increasingly focused on its survival amid a deepening legitimacy crisis fueled by economic hardship, public disillusionment, and waves of civil unrest — most notably the 2022 protests sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini. Unlike previous protests focused on economic issues, these were more politically charged, challenging the foundations of the Islamic Republic. Iranian authorities, while acknowledging public alienation, have blamed external enemies—chiefly the U.S. and Israel—for inciting unrest. Khamenei and other leaders accuse these countries of waging psychological and cyber warfare, supporting opposition groups, and seeking regime change. 

Israel, in particular, is now seen as playing a central role in attempts to destabilize Iran from within. This includes cyberattacks, assassinations, and open support for opposition figures like Reza Pahlavi, son of the deposed Shah. Iranian intelligence officials have claimed that Israel collaborates with Western and regional actors to fund and organize protests and covert operations within Iran. Iranian media also allege that Israel uses soft power (via exile-run media and psychological operations) to erode public trust in the regime. These developments suggest that Iran’s nuclear strategy, internal repression, and foreign policy are deeply intertwined in a broader effort to ensure the regime’s survival against both domestic dissent and perceived external subversion.

Iran’s hostility toward Israel remains a core part of its foreign policy, fundamentally ideological and distinct from its conflict with the U.S., which is more policy-driven. While tensions with the U.S. could theoretically ease, Iran views Israel’s very existence as illegitimate and seeks its elimination. 

Israel should consider whether war with Iran is inevitable or avoidable, especially in light of the Gaza war's impact on regional dynamics. Iran’s influence depends heavily on instability. If Israel succeeds in defeating Hamas, establishing a transitional authority, and restarting regional normalization, Iran’s regional standing could be weakened.