Why Israel is urging Iranians to rise up despite expecting a brutal crackdown

(File photo/AP)

A recent US diplomatic cable has revealed a sharp contradiction at the heart of Israel’s approach to Iran. Publicly, Israeli leaders are encouraging Iranians to rise up against their government. Privately, they appear to believe that such protests would be met with overwhelming force and heavy casualties.

That gap between messaging and assessment raises important questions about strategy, expectations and the risks for ordinary Iranians, the Washington Post reported.

Public messaging vs private expectations

Israeli leaders have repeatedly called on the Iranian public to take to the streets and challenge the regime. The idea is that sustained internal pressure could weaken or even topple the leadership in Tehran.

But behind closed doors, the assessment appears far more pessimistic. According to the diplomatic cable, Israeli officials have told US counterparts that any large-scale protests would likely be crushed quickly and violently.

Iran’s security forces, especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and affiliated units, are seen as firmly in control. Here’s a more natural, more human rewrite of that section:

Past protests have already shown just how far the regime is willing to go to stay in control.

The regime is under pressure, but still holding

There was an early belief that recent strikes, including the killing of Iran’s supreme leader, might shake things internally.

That hasn’t really played out.

Despite sustained attacks, the system is still functioning. Iran has continued to launch missiles and drones, and the leadership structure hasn’t shown any clear signs of breaking down. If anything, officials now seem to be acknowledging that the regime is tougher and more resilient than they initially expected.

Even with changes at the top, the core power structure remains intact, and hardliners are still firmly in charge.

So why push for an uprising?

One way to look at it is through the lens of pressure. Even if an uprising doesn’t succeed, it could force the regime to turn inward, stretch its resources, and deal with unrest at home. From a strategic point of view, that could still weaken it over time.

But the reality is, the people taking that risk would be ordinary civilians.

The risk of civilians being caught in the middle

Encouraging protests in a system that has a record of violent crackdowns raises obvious concerns. There’s a real possibility that people could take to the streets and face severe consequences without any meaningful chance of change.

There’s also a trust issue. Many Iranians are already wary of outside powers, and mixed signals like these can make that scepticism worse.

In the end, it risks putting ordinary people in the middle of a much larger geopolitical game, without much protection.

The US is sounding more cautious now

Early on, US President Donald Trump openly encouraged Iranians to rise up. More recently, there has been a clearer acknowledgment of what that would actually mean on the ground, heavily armed forces and a high likelihood of violence.

There’s also been a quiet step back from openly talking about regime change, suggesting a more cautious stance than before.

A misread of how strong the system is

Another thing this episode highlights is a possible miscalculation. There was an expectation that military pressure from outside, combined with unrest inside, might quickly destabilise the regime. Instead, it has absorbed the pressure and kept operating.

That has forced a rethink of what can realistically be achieved in the near term.

A strategy with no easy outcomes

Encouraging an uprising might increase pressure on the regime, but it also puts civilians at serious risk. At the same time, the regime itself isn’t showing signs of collapsing anytime soon.

That gap between what is being encouraged publicly and what is expected privately makes the whole strategy much harder to read, and even harder to predict.

Encouraging an uprising might increase pressure on the regime, but it also exposes civilians to significant danger. At the same time, the regime itself has shown no clear signs of collapsing quickly.

That leaves a gap between what is being publicly encouraged and what is privately expected.

For now, the question is not just whether an uprising will happen, but what it would actually achieve, and at what cost.