A banner displays an image of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in Tehran. Top-down nationalist rhetoric cannot paper over the real challenges the country faces © Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu/Getty Images

By Burcu Özçelik
Senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute

Financial Times

Twelve days of war with Israel in June exposed Iran’s vulnerabilities in intelligence, internal security and air defences. Confronted with external military aggression, the government turned to the nationalist playbook. In public squares and social media, a panoply of images pay homage to historical Persia, Cyrus the Great, Persepolis and other pre-Islamic symbols alongside Shia religious ones. A “neo-nationalist” turn and the rise of a hardline generation committed to defending the Islamic republic are seemingly in the making.

The increasingly mainstream narrative that the west cannot be trusted plays into the regime’s hands. Following Israel’s bombardment, and the ongoing devastation in Gaza, many Iranians have become sceptical that rapprochement with the west would advance their national interests. Yet it is not inevitable that, as some have argued, the next generation will harden into uncompromising religious or nationalist ideologues.

When Israel’s strikes began, Iranians did not unanimously rally around the regime but there was a widespread sense of national pride and defiance.

Since then, nationalism and fear-mongering have gone hand in hand, legitimising Tehran’s coercive measures against dissidents under the guise of defending the homeland. In the wake of the June war, Iran’s government has cracked down heavily with reports of arrests of up to 21,000 “suspects”.

For Washington and Europe, the challenge is to counter the regime’s claim that the west cannot be a credible partner to the Iranian people or to their aspirations for a better future.

The ongoing contest over who speaks for the nation’s past, present and future is inextricably linked with Iran’s succession crisis. The question of who will replace Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei goes to the heart of the Iranian state’s identity. The regime may have received an injection of shortlived support in the wake of Israeli and US military strikes, but this has not solved Tehran’s fundamental challenge of shoring up its waning political legitimacy.

Top-down nationalist rhetoric cannot paper over the very real challenges Iran faces. The country is buckling under dire electricity outages, coupled with years of drought and mismanagement that spell daily water shortages. International sanctions, reimposed by the leaders of Britain, France and Germany on Thursday with a 30-day window before implementation, and Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign have damaged the economy. Iranians know this; their rulers do too.

Most authoritarian regimes survive not because they are change-proof, but because they learn to mutate. In recent weeks, Tehran has signalled it is bolstering its political and military resilience in the event of a future war. Military appointments were quickly made to replace figures eliminated by Israel, who included the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Ali Larijani, a veteran politician, has been reinstated as secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, a position he last held 18 years ago — showing that leaders are running out of level-headed officials seasoned in diplomacy. President Masoud Pezeshkian and other reformists have called for renewed diplomacy, but are being criticised by political opponents who see engagement with the US and Europe as an invitation for future aggression.

The stance of military officers in the coming years will be crucial. Will they cling to the IRGC’s goal of exporting the revolution — which has arguably failed — or focus less on projecting power abroad and more on defending the home front? Much will also depend on the balance of power between the regular armed forces and the IRGC.

A return to serious diplomacy with the goal of a lasting deal, rather than endless bids to buy time, is essential. But Iran is showing few signs that it intends to change tack. In July, the US, UK and European allies condemned attempts by Iranian intelligence agents to “kill, kidnap, and harass people in Europe and North America in clear violation of our sovereignty”. That Tehran is signalling a “more of the same” approach by continuing to back Hizbollah and other armed non-state groups undermines any prospect of long-term regional stability.

Eventually, the surge in Iranian nationalism might encourage Tehran to limit its costly support for regional actors and focus on Iranians’ significant sociopolitical and economic grievances. At home and abroad, patience with a regime that sacrifices the needs of its people for the cause of transnational “resistance” is running thin. But if the west fails to engage diplomatically and relies instead on military pressure, it will not help the cause of Iranians.