Iran Divided Over Prospect of New War With Israel

Iranwire – In the cramped streets of Shush, a working-class neighborhood in southern Tehran, social security retirees recently chanted a message that captured the anxiety gripping ordinary Iranians:”Enough warmongering, our tables are empty.”

Their protest reflects a nation caught between the martial rhetoric of its leaders and the economic desperation of its citizens, as speculation grows about another war with Israel.

The diplomatic collapse following the activation of the snapback mechanism – a provision that reimposed international sanctions on Iran -has triggered intense debate within the Islamic Republic over whether war is inevitable, advisable, or already underway.

Military commanders, clerics, parliamentarians, and analysts offer conflicting assessments.

Some proclaim victory from the 12-day war earlier this year and predict Israel will not risk another conflict. Others describe war as imminent, apocalyptic, or, paradoxically, the path to peace.

The contradictory messaging reveals deep uncertainty within Iran’s leadership about the country’s strategic position and domestic cohesion as it faces potential military action from Israel and diplomatic isolation from the West.

Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a meeting at the White House with U.S. President Donald Trump.

Though their subsequent press conference made little mention of Iran, many observers interpreted the consultation as planning for a second phase of military operations against Tehran.

Political analysts suggest Trump wants Netanyahu to conclude unfinished military objectives before any potential agreement with Hamas, as Washington grows increasingly frustrated with prolonged regional conflicts.

Statements from Pete Hegseth, the U.S. Defence Secretary, following the meeting further fueled speculation, as his comment that “those who long for peace must prepare for war” signaled American readiness for potential escalation.

The diplomatic context makes these discussions particularly ominous.

For years, the Islamic Republic has championed the slogan of “wiping Israel off the map,” yet even some regime supporters now express concern about Israeli retaliation.

Israel, meanwhile, has repeatedly said that it will not allow Iran to rebuild its nuclear capabilities. This collision of red lines makes another round of fighting not only possible but potentially inevitable, analysts say.

Iranian officials offer starkly different predictions about the timing and likelihood of conflict.

Behnam Saeedi, the first secretary of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the parliament, believes that war will occur regardless of the snapback mechanism.

He describes the current situation as a cessation of military operations rather than a genuine ceasefire, leaving open the possibility of renewed hostilities at any time.

IRGC commander Yaqoub Zahedi takes a more optimistic view, suggesting Iran’s deterrence remains effective for at least three months.

He argues that Israel’s previous strategy of provoking popular revolt through targeted assassinations has failed, forcing any future Israeli approach to focus instead on inciting internal unrest.

Mohsen Rezaei, a member of the Expediency Discernment Council, offered the most enigmatic assessment, declaring that speculation about the timing of war is pointless “because the war is ongoing now.”

A day earlier, Rezaei had hinted at imminent developments in Israel that would prevent renewed attacks on Iran, though he declined to elaborate.

He claimed Iran had prepared for two months of fighting during the recent conflict while deploying only 30 per cent of its capabilities, warning that a full-scale response would follow any new Israeli aggression.

Former parliamentarian Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh echoed this escalatory rhetoric, predicting that another war would prove “apocalyptic” given Iran’s missile arsenal.

He suggested that Tehran had previously exercised restraint but would likely expand any future conflict rather than merely manage it.

Some officials reject the idea that peace should be pursued at all. Ahmad Khatami, a member of the Assembly of Experts presidium, argues that conflict must continue because Western opposition to Iran transcends specific issues like nuclear development or human rights.

He frames the confrontation as existential, requiring sustained warfare until the “Zionist regime is eliminated.”

Other officials celebrate what they describe as Iran’s strategic victory during the 12-day war.

Yahya Rahim Safavi, a senior adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, claims Israel suffered a strategic defeat and “requested a ceasefire through American intermediaries.” He asserts that Iran fired 500 missiles at Israel, killing at least 16 pilots, while emphasizing the need to maintain both offensive and defensive readiness.

IRGC spokesman Ali Mohammad Naeini disputes suggestions that Iran was caught unprepared, claiming military planners anticipated Israeli aggression as early as January.

First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref announced that the government remains on full alert, drawing on experiences from the Iran-Iraq War, the recent 12-day conflict, and other confrontations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Yet many Iranians question whether authorities have made practical preparations for civilian protection.

Critics note the absence of public shelter infrastructure, suggesting that ordinary citizens may face the next conflict without government support.

Confronted with external threats and internal skepticism, officials increasingly emphasize national cohesion.

Emadeddin Baghi, a human rights researcher, wrote in Shargh newspaper that internal developments pose a greater danger than a foreign attack.

He expressed confidence that Israel’s regional dominance has “eroded,” claiming Iranian missiles can strike Israeli territory at will. Baghi suggested that building social capital and public trust represents the most effective defense strategy.

Former IRGC commander Mohammad Fathi described the 12-day war as an “amazing victory” in an interview with the ISNA news agency.

He credited “national unity, the Supreme Leader’s guidance, and the extensive bombardment of Tel Aviv and Haifa for creating the image of a war-torn Israel while preventing similar conditions inside Iran.”

Fathi warned Iranians to “remain vigilant against infiltrating forces and be ready for future conflicts in support of the velayat system of clerical rule.”

Ali Ahmadnia, head of government information affairs, said on social media that “Israeli missiles do not discriminate based on political affiliation, gender, or social status.”

Despite appeals for unity, the Islamic Republic’s actions suggest a different trajectory. Iran has moved toward greater nuclear ambiguity, with parliament discussing a potential withdrawal from the NPT. Such steps could dramatically increase the likelihood of conflict.

Former blogger Hossein Derakhshan warned that secrecy regarding 60 per cent enriched uranium will not deter an attack but instead provide justification for one.

He cited Operation Desert Fox – the 1998 U.S.-British bombing campaign against Iraq – arguing that Saddam Hussein’s concealment of weapons programs became the pretext for military action.

Derakhshan suggested that Iran’s lack of transparency could similarly enable a preemptive strike framed as necessary to prevent nuclear weapons development.