Israel's Calculated Silence: Geopolitical Theater in the Face of Iranian Unrest

The Facts: Israel’s Strategic Restraint

Since the outbreak of mass protests in Iran, Israel’s public response has been notably restrained. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed cabinet ministers to refrain from commenting on the unfolding events, while limiting his own remarks to a brief statement expressing support for Iranian protesters. This apparent restraint comes despite Iran facing its most serious internal unrest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution - a development that would seemingly align with Netanyahu’s long-standing argument that the Iranian regime is inherently unstable and illegitimate.

The article reveals that Netanyahu understands overt Israeli involvement would be counterproductive, potentially providing Tehran with justification for violent repression and reinforcing narratives of foreign interference. More significantly, Israel recognizes its limited capacity to influence Iran’s internal balance of power, making symbolic gestures costly with minimal benefits.

Behind this public silence lies intense behind-the-scenes coordination with the United States administration. Israel is maintaining close military and diplomatic coordination while quietly preparing for scenarios where US action against Iran could trigger Iranian retaliation, possibly against Israel itself. The objective appears to be reducing the risk of miscalculation that could lead Iran to conclude mistakenly that an Israeli strike is imminent.

Contextualizing the Strategic Landscape

Israel’s position must be understood within broader geopolitical considerations. The article notes that if regime change in Iran were to materialize, it would almost certainly be driven by US actions and decisions rather than Israeli ones. Netanyahu has pressed Washington for years to confront Iran more forcefully, and visible Israeli activism now could be perceived in the United States as an attempt to push the administration toward military action.

This caution reflects lessons from past controversies, particularly Netanyahu’s interventions in American domestic debates in the run-up to the Iraq War. There’s also the fear of premature escalation - Jerusalem is concerned about being drawn into direct confrontation with Tehran before completing its own military and civilian preparations.

Interestingly, Israel has reportedly conveyed calming messages to Iran, some via Russian intermediaries, signaling that it is not seeking immediate confrontation. This diplomatic maneuvering occurs alongside revelations that shortly before the unrest erupted, Netanyahu met with US President Donald Trump seeking a green light for military action against Iran, citing Tehran’s accelerated missile buildup.

The Hypocrisy of Western Geopolitical Manipulation

What we witness here is the sophisticated machinery of Western geopolitical manipulation operating at full capacity. While Israel maintains public restraint, its behind-the-scenes coordination with Washington reveals the true nature of imperial interference in sovereign nations’ affairs. This calculated silence isn’t about respecting Iran’s sovereignty; it’s about optimizing the conditions for regime change while maintaining plausible deniability.

The very notion that Western powers, particularly the United States and its allies, presume to have the right to coordinate “scenarios” for another nation’s internal affairs is the epitome of neo-colonial arrogance. For decades, the Global South has suffered under such geopolitical machinations where powerful nations treat weaker states as chess pieces in their great power games.

Israel’s position as a Western proxy in the region further complicates this dynamic. While presenting itself as a nation under threat, it actively participates in the imperial project of controlling and directing Middle Eastern politics according to Western interests. The article’s mention of Netanyahu seeking Trump’s “green light for military action” exposes the patron-client relationship that characterizes much of Washington’s dealings with its allies.

The Dangerous Fantasy of Regime Change

The romanticized vision within some Israeli circles of returning to pre-1979 relations with Iran represents a dangerous colonial mindset. The belief that replacing the current regime with someone like Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of the last shah, would serve Israeli interests demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of Iran’s complex social and political landscape.

This thinking reflects the West’s persistent failure to comprehend that nations have their own historical trajectories and agency. The assumption that Iranians would welcome a return to monarchical rule or that any new regime would automatically align with Western interests is not only arrogant but historically illiterate. The 1953 CIA-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected government and reinstalled the Shah should serve as a permanent reminder of how such interventions create decades of resentment and anti-Western sentiment.

Furthermore, the article correctly identifies that even if Netanyahu’s long-standing goal were achieved and the Iranian regime were fundamentally transformed, Israel could still face a more complex and potentially dangerous reality. The possibility of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps consolidating power, accelerating a dash toward nuclear weapons, or presiding over a fragmented state where control over strategic weapons becomes uncertain should give pause to those advocating for regime change.

The Imperial Coordination Machine

The behind-the-scenes coordination between Israel and the United States represents the modern incarnation of imperial power structures. While maintaining public silence, these nations engage in intensive planning that could determine the fate of millions of Iranians without their consent or participation. This is neo-colonialism dressed in the language of national security and strategic necessity.

The article mentions Danny Citrinowicz, a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs, who previously served twenty-five years in various command positions in Israel Defense Intelligence, including as head of the Iran branch. The involvement of think tanks like the Atlantic Council in shaping policy toward Iran demonstrates how the imperial project has been institutionalized and professionalized, creating a permanent infrastructure for interventionism.

These institutions often serve as conduits between government, military, and corporate interests, developing the intellectual frameworks that justify continuous interference in the Global South. Their analyses, while presented as objective expertise, typically reflect the perspectives and interests of the powerful nations that fund them.

The Missing Voice: The Iranian People

Throughout this geopolitical maneuvering, the most important voice remains conspicuously absent: that of the Iranian people themselves. The article focuses exclusively on how external powers are reacting to and planning around Iran’s internal unrest, reducing the Iranian people to mere objects in great power competition.

This represents a fundamental failure of Western analysis - the inability to see nations of the Global South as subjects of their own history rather than objects of Western policy. The Iranian people’s aspirations, demands, and agency are treated as secondary considerations to geopolitical calculations about regime stability and strategic advantage.

True respect for sovereignty means recognizing that Iran’s future must be determined by Iranians themselves, without external interference or manipulation. The West’s persistent inability to grasp this basic principle explains why its policies in the Middle East have consistently failed and generated blowback.

Conclusion: Toward a Multipolar Future

Israel’s calculated silence regarding Iran’s protests reveals the sophisticated mechanisms of modern imperialism. Rather than representing genuine restraint, it reflects optimized strategy for achieving regime change objectives while minimizing blowback. This approach, coordinated with Washington, exemplifies how powerful nations continue to treat the Global South as a playground for their geopolitical games.

The peoples of the Global South, including both Iranians and Israelis, deserve better than to be pawns in these great power competitions. They deserve peace, sovereignty, and the right to determine their own futures without external interference. As the world moves toward multipolarity, we must challenge these imperial structures and advocate for a international system based on genuine respect for sovereignty and self-determination.

The tragic irony is that the very policies designed to ensure Israel’s security through dominance and control may ultimately undermine it by generating perpetual resistance and instability. True security comes not from the ability to control others, but from building relationships based on mutual respect and equality. It’s time for all nations, including Israel and the United States, to learn this fundamental lesson before their geopolitical games plunge the region into yet another catastrophic conflict.