For weeks, the United States has publicly threatened military action against Iran in response to its suppression of protests, while Israel has remained largely silent. This unusual quiet from Jerusalem, a nation accustomed to vocal and even military confrontation with Tehran, signals a calculated approach to a volatile situation.
A Shift in Tactics
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly instructed his cabinet to refrain from commenting on Iran as protests erupted late last month, fueled by economic hardship in the country of over 90 million people. Netanyahu himself issued a brief statement encouraging the downfall of the Iranian regime and expressing support for the Iranian people, but has otherwise remained reserved.
This restraint extends to reportedly asking US President Donald Trump to delay potential strikes on Iran, seemingly to allow Israel time to prepare for potential retaliation. Despite Iran’s threats to retaliate against Israel and US assets, Jerusalem has not responded with its typical strong rhetoric.
Calculated Restraint
Analysts suggest Israel’s silence isn’t due to a lack of desire to see the Iranian regime collapse, but rather a strategic decision to avoid disrupting a potential internal shift in power. According to Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, “[Israel’s] thinking is that our ability to help is limited, and the cost is high, because any visible involvement would give the Iranians an excuse to intensify repression.”
Intervention could also backfire, allowing the regime to portray protesters as agents of Israel, thereby undermining the movement. A US strike carries a similar risk, potentially uniting Iranians against an external aggressor. If a strike were to occur, Israel reportedly prefers the US, with its greater military capabilities, to take the lead.
Looking Ahead
Tehran has reportedly quelled the recent uprising, though the underlying issues remain unresolved. Should protests reignite, Israel is likely to maintain its current posture of quiet observation. Analysts like Eran Lerman, vice president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, believe “The Iranian regime is probably finished — no matter what happens,” citing a fundamentally damaged economy.
However, a collapse of the regime carries its own risks, including a potential power vacuum and the possibility of the Revolutionary Guards consolidating control. Israel is also wary of renewed Iranian missile production, and may face a direct confrontation with Tehran in 2026 if this continues. For now, Israel appears to be adopting a “wait and see” approach, recognizing that lasting change in Iran must ultimately come from within.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Israel’s current stance on the protests in Iran?
Israel has maintained a relatively quiet stance, with Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly instructing his cabinet to avoid public comment and issuing only a brief statement of support for the Iranian people and a desire for regime change.
Why is Israel taking this approach?
Analysts suggest Israel is attempting to avoid disrupting a potential internal shift in power within Iran and to avoid giving the regime justification to intensify repression. They also believe direct Israeli involvement could be counterproductive.
What could prompt Israel to take a more active role?
Israel could become more involved if it faces a direct threat or if there is a clear opportunity to influence events, such as a fracture within the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
Given the complex and evolving situation, what role do you believe external actors should play in supporting change within Iran?
