The national security of Iran and Israel: Confronting a common threat - opinion

ByERFAN FARDNOVEMBER 12, 2026 13:52

In the calculations of national security, the destiny of nations is determined not by the names of politicians, but by the nature of threats, the enduring character of national interests, and the ability of governments to identify strategic dangers.

From this perspective, the Islamic Caliphate regime of the Shi'ite mullah – under the meaningless and hollow banner of an imaginary phenomenon called the Islamic Republic – represents for Israel neither a passing political dispute nor merely a consequence of the policies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Gadi Eisenkot, but a structural challenge to the national security of that country.

Whether Netanyahu remains in power or Eisenkot assumes the leadership of Israel’s next government, one fundamental reality will remain unchanged: the Islamic Republic continues to be regarded as one of Israel’s most significant security threats; a threat whose consequences have also been profound and devastating when measured against the national interests of the Iranian people.

Therefore, a clear distinction must be drawn between Iran as a historic nation and the occupying, plundering, repressive, destructive, and sellout regime of the Islamic Republic as the political structure ruling over it.

A criminal cult that has occupied Iran by force of arms, and each of these Shi'ite mullahs is a walking bomb, far more dangerous and destructive than an atomic bomb, because they promote superstitions, delusions, and religious fanaticism, which are the principal roots of Islamic terrorism.

Iran and Israel do not necessarily have identical interests on every regional issue, just as no two nations in international relations enjoy such absolute convergence.

Nevertheless, confronting the expansionist and destructive policies of the rogue Islamic Republic regime, its terrorist proxy networks, missile threats, and nuclear risks constitutes a point at which Israel’s national security considerations overlap with certain aspirations and national interests of the Iranian people. In other words, the life and survival of the two nations, Israel and Iran, depend upon it.

Importance of Israel confronting Iran

For Israel, confronting the Islamic Republic is a matter of national survival and preventing the emergence of future threats. For the suffering and oppressed Iranian nation, the issue concerns preserving their country’s historical existence, freedom, national sovereignty, and bringing an end to a political structure that places its own survival above the public interest.

Under such circumstances, the collapse of the Islamic Republic’s governing structure and its replacement by a government that is accountable to the Iranian nation, nationalist, and patriotic could, from the perspective of this analysis, create the conditions necessary to eliminate one of the most significant sources of instability in the region.

The West and the US are not standing alongside the nations of Israel and Iran on the right side of history, nor have they taken their place on the right side of history.

The differences between Netanyahu and Eisenkot must also be examined within this framework. These two political figures may disagree over crisis management, the timing of the use of military force, relations with Washington, the role of diplomacy, and the costs of war, which is natural. Nevertheless, disagreement over the means does not necessarily signify disagreement over the identification of the threat.

Netanyahu has openly – and rightly – spoken of overthrowing the Islamic Republic as a means of eliminating this threat. Eisenkot, too, has emphasized the necessity of bringing this regime to an end, although he does not consider its downfall through foreign military intervention realistic and regards the Iranian people as the decisive force in bringing about such a transformation.

Therefore, their strategic convergence in identifying the threat must not be confused with having an identical approach to confronting it. Three opportunities for regime change have been lost: the 12 Day War, the 40-day war, and the opportunity of the past nine months.

Within this complex equation, Mossad occupies a distinctive position. Israel’s intelligence and special operations agency, unlike governments and electoral coalitions, is a permanent institution within the country’s national security establishment.

Its mission encompasses the collection of strategic intelligence, the identification of threats, countering hostile activities, and providing intelligence support for national security decision-making. Naturally, a change of prime minister may bring changes in priorities, the direction of operations, and the limits of executive authority.

Nevertheless, it would be unreasonable to expect that a mere change in political leadership could remove the threat posed by the Islamic Republic from Mossad’s strategic calculations. Mossad’s experts and operatives are the real nightmare of the criminal cult ruling Iran.

From a strategic standpoint, the Islamic Republic is a mafia regime that, over decades, has intertwined its political survival with costly security policies, the repression of domestic opponents, and intervention in regional conflicts.

When such a structure perceives its existence to be in jeopardy, it resorts to intensifying domestic repression, expanding external crises, and escalating deterrent measures to preserve its hold on power.

For its own survival, it is prepared to commit any kind of atrocity, such as the genocide of January 2026. This very characteristic and barbarism make anticipating its future conduct both difficult and hazardous for intelligence and security institutions.

Nevertheless, the existence of a common threat does not imply that the Iranian nation and Israel share identical objectives in every respect. Iran’s national security must rest upon independence, territorial integrity, the protection of its citizens’ lives, and the Iranian nation’s right to determine its own destiny.

Equally, any strategy intended to eliminate the threat posed by the Islamic Republic must account for its humanitarian consequences, the dangers of instability, and the possibility of an expanding war. The end of a government does not, in itself, guarantee lasting security; the manner of political transition and the establishment of a subsequent political order are equally decisive.

Ultimately, the fundamental question is not whether Netanyahu remains Israel’s prime minister or Eisenkot succeeds him, but in which direction the national interests of Israel and the Iranian nation will move.

Will regime change be achieved? Even though there is no strong determination for regime change in the White House, some are still, in their delusions, pursuing the mirage of an agreement with Islamic terrorism!

The more important question is how Israel’s national security establishment will assess the continuing threat posed by the continued existence of the Islamic Republic, and to what extent that assessment will align with the aspirations of Iranians seeking a free, independent, and secure country.

Genuine national security is not defined by the changing names of political leaders; rather, it is achieved through the elimination of enduring sources of danger.

Within this framework, the end of the Islamic Republic, provided that it is accompanied by a responsible political transition and the preservation of Iran’s security and national sovereignty, could not only serve the future interests of the Iranian people but also constitute a fundamental step toward reducing security threats against Israel and establishing more enduring stability throughout the Middle East.

This will be achieved when the new prime minister, in coordination with Mossad, considers developing a security force composed of patriotic Iranians for the transitional period in Iran.

Something resembling SAVAK, Mossad, and the CIA’s former ally in Iran during the reign of Iran’s late shah must be reestablished; otherwise, Iran will be engulfed in civil war and a bloodbath.

Naturally, Iran’s destiny belongs to the Iranian people. Nevertheless, the threat created by the Islamic Republic has long since extended far beyond Iran’s borders.

Another falsehood propagated by the Islamic Republic and its allied Marxist and Communist circles is the notion that Israel seeks to partition and dismember Iran. Yet a united, strong, and free Iran could be Israel’s natural friend and ally.

The reopening of Israel’s embassy in Tehran, perhaps among the first diplomatic initiatives following regime change, could herald the restoration of the ancient historical and cultural bonds between these two nations – bonds that were never entirely severed, even during the darkest decades of the Islamic Republic’s rule.

The enduring mutual affection between Iranians and Jews, and even the embrace of Judaism by some Iranians who have departed from Islam, reflects human and spiritual affinities that transcend political hostility.

This precious inheritance should be regarded as an auspicious sign, for following the collapse of the Islamic Republic, it could pave the way for an ever-closer relationship between the two peoples and the dawn of a new chapter in Iranian-Israeli relations.

The writer is a Middle East political analyst. His latest book, Tehran’s Dictator, examines the theocratic era of Ali Khamenei (1989-2026). @EQFard

Follow us on Google

---