Dr. Gil Feiler
- This article is based on interview with an Iranian exile who left Iran with his family following the 1979 revolution led by Ruhollah Khomeini.
For decades, the dominant geopolitical narrative has portrayed Iran and Israel as implacable enemies. Missile programs, proxy networks, nuclear tensions, and ritualized anti-Israel rhetoric have shaped international perceptions. Yet according to an Iranian exile who fled the country with his family after the Islamic Revolution, this state-driven hostility does not fully reflect societal attitudes within Iran itself.
A central distinction must be made: the Islamic Republic is not synonymous with the Iranian nation. The interviewee emphasized that many politically conscious Iranians — both inside the country and across the diaspora — do not internalize the regime’s ideological hostility toward Israel. Instead, a significant segment views Israel through a different historical and civilizational lens.
This divergence is symbolically visible in diaspora demonstrations across Europe and North America, where some Iranian protesters have carried Israeli flags alongside the historic Lion & Sun flag of pre-revolutionary Iran. According to the exile, this symbolism conveys a rejection of regime ideology and an effort to reclaim a national identity rooted in Persia’s pre-1979 historical continuity rather than revolutionary doctrine.
Iranian identity, he argued, is anchored in a civilization that predates the Islamic Republic by millennia. Figures such as Cyrus the Great hold an honored place not only in Persian history but also in Jewish collective memory, having permitted the return of Jews from Babylonian exile and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. For many Iranians, this episode reflects a legacy of imperial tolerance and cultural sophistication. The rupture in relations with Israel, therefore, is widely perceived among critics of the regime as a political construction of the post-1979 order rather than an organic product of Persian culture.
The interviewee underscored another often misunderstood element: Iranian national consciousness is deeply Persian, not Arab, and not inherently ideological. While Islam is an integral part of Iranian society, many citizens differentiate between personal faith and the regime’s political interpretation of religion. The resurgence of pre-Islamic symbols in protest movements reflects this distinction and signals an attempt to reclaim historical identity independent of revolutionary theology.
Beyond historical memory, there is a psychological dimension shaping perceptions of Israel. According to the exile, many Iranians observe how global and regional powers approach Tehran with caution, negotiation, and calibrated restraint. Israel, by contrast, is perceived as strategically decisive and unafraid of confrontation when core security interests are threatened. Whether this perception is universally accurate is less important than the fact that it influences attitudes.
One metaphor circulating among critics of the regime likens the Islamic Republic to a malignant regional force whose influence spreads through proxy networks and ideological militias. In this analogy, many governments behave as cautious observers, wary of escalation. Israel, however, is imagined as a surgeon willing to operate when delay risks further deterioration. The metaphor does not necessarily imply enthusiasm for conflict; rather, it reflects frustration with prolonged international hesitation and a belief that decisive action can alter entrenched dynamics.
The interviewee also referenced a reversal of what political scientists describe as the “madman theory,” whereby a state cultivates unpredictability to deter adversaries. Tehran’s projection of strategic irrationality, he argued, is designed to instill fear. Yet when confronted by an actor perceived as disciplined and calculating, such theatrics may lose their deterrent value. In this framework, Israel’s reputation for strategic composure contributes to a sense of credibility among certain Iranian observers.
The broader implication is significant. If a substantial segment of Iranian society views Israel not as a civilizational adversary but as a potential partner in resisting authoritarian rule, this represents a rare strategic opening in the Middle East. Historically, regional alignments have been shaped by regime interests rather than popular sentiment. The existence of even a partial societal basis for future normalization would therefore be unprecedented.
The contrast is striking: while official rhetoric in Tehran continues to frame Israel as an existential enemy, visible elements of Iranian civil society articulate a markedly different perspective. That divergence does not yet translate into policy, nor does it define the entirety of Iranian public opinion. However, it suggests that beneath the surface of state hostility lies a more nuanced and potentially transformative reality.
According to the exile, the key question is not whether governments are ready for change, but whether this societal window will remain open. In geopolitics, moments of alignment between peoples are rare. When they emerge, they can reshape regional history — if recognized in time.
