There’s a bitter irony in war: When missiles start falling, they sometimes have a way of breathing new life into loathed, embattled leaders, rather than ushering them out the door.
So even though both the Iranian regime and Israel’s perennial prime minister have been deeply unpopular for years, it’s worth considering the possibility that war may be the very thing keeping them in power—at least for now.
Over a decade reporting from the Middle East, I’ve seen repeatedly how military threats have a way of eclipsing internal power struggles. We’ve seen this Rally ‘Round the Flag Effect throughout U.S. history as well. (See: President George W. Bush’s approval ratings after 9/11.)
After all, when cities come under attack, citizens tend to rush to their leaders’ side, rather than turn on them for failing to defend the country.
In today’s case, the surge of nationalism gripping Iranians and Israelis suggests that those who hope this is the Mideast’s moment for a broad realignment, ushering fresh and reform-minded governments into power, may have to wait a little longer.
Iran: from protest to patriotism
Binyamin Netanyahu opened the war two weeks ago with a barely concealed call to the Iranian populace: rise up and seize the opportunity presented by Israel’s shock-and-awe campaign. In a speech to Iranians, the Israeli prime minister cast his country’s assault on theirs as “clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom.”
He even ventured a few words in Farsi, proclaiming “Zan, Zendegi, Azadi”—Woman, Life, Freedom, an Iranian protest slogan that Israeli hawks have embraced, aiming to portray Israel as a force for Iranian women’s liberation.
But few people want to be liberated by bombs and missiles, particularly after Iranian propagandists have spent decades inoculating the public with the belief that Israel is their arch enemy.
As a fragile ceasefire takes hold and Iranians return to their homes, there’s no sign of a popular uprising of the flavor that Netanyahu and Iranian dissidents had hoped for. To the contrary, some prominent women’s rights activists and exiled Iranian celebrities typically critical of the regime are rallying around it, rebuking Israel for trampling on their nation’s sovereignty.
And for now, the government’s grip on power seems intact. Internal political factions most likely to challenge the regime have been quieter than usual. There are no indications the military chain of command has broken down. From the bunker where he’s reportedly hunkered down, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, has quickly replaced generals assassinated by Israel.
In fact, as both Israel and the U.S. vaguely threaten that Khamenei could be targeted, the 86-year-old leader appears to be working to ensure that even if he’s toppled, the regime is not. And in light of the humiliating failure to detect and prevent this month’s attacks, there are growing concerns that any shift in how Iran is governed may strengthen, not diminish, the power of military hardliners and Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards.
Netanyahu: Israel’s Comeback Kid
Two weeks ago, Netanyahu’s political prospects were grim. His brand as Israel’s indispensable protector was on life support after eroding democratic norms, presiding over the biggest intelligence failure in Israeli history and failing throughout nearly two years of war in Gaza to eradicate Hamas or free all the hostages.
But just days after a ceasefire took hold, polls in Israel are already showing a bump for Netanyahu. Even detractors—including his chief political rival, Yair Lapid—are cheering him for accomplishing what no previous prime minister could: enlisting the U.S. in bombing Iran’s nuclear program.
For all the horrors Hamas inflicted on Israel on October 7, 2023 (and for decades before), Israelis have long viewed Iran as the real existential threat.
When I first reported from Israel in 2011, the Israeli military brought me to the sprawling Ashdod port to see Iranian heavy weapons seized from a ship off the Mediterranean coast that Israel said was headed to Gaza. With anti-ship missiles, mortars and ammunition splayed out across the dock, Netanyahu (yes, he was prime minister then, too) vowed to “smash” Iran’s “axis of terror.”
Even in the days after the Oct. 7 attacks, Israelis I interviewed throughout the country told me the Iranian threat still disturbed them most. More than war with Hamas, the specter of Iran and its heavily armed proxies, like Hezbollah, unleashing missiles on Israeli cities was the fear they couldn’t shirk.
Now, with Iran’s nuclear program degraded and its proxies badly hobbled by recent Israeli attacks, Netanyahu can credibly claim to have defused the threat. For the first time in years, he looks plausibly positioned to get re-elected.
If that happens, it could well strengthen Israel’s far right, whose leaders have kept Netanyahu’s coalition afloat and who remain ardently opposed to ending the Gaza war. That, in turn, could extend the very irritant fueling anti-Israel sentiment from Tehran to Riyadh, undermining Trump’s and Netanyahu’s ambitious goal of securing an historic Israeli detente with Saudi Arabia and other regional powers.
As the world waits to see whether the ceasefire holds, the political crosscurrents are carrying a sobering lesson for the region: Real transformation, whether in Tehran or Jerusalem, will likely have to come from within. A new Mideast reality may still take shape, but perhaps not in the ways, or as soon, as anyone expected.
Josh Lederman, a journalist and former correspondent for NBC News and The Associated Press, has reported throughout the Middle East for 15 years.
