TEL AVIV — Amid mounting domestic unrest and heightened international scrutiny, Iran is reportedly considering a major strategic recalibration: the potential abandonment of its long-supported regional proxy networks in order to preserve core regime stability. This assessment, conveyed by Arab security and diplomatic circles, underscores a significant moment of decision-making in Tehran, where the ruling authorities are under intense pressure on both the internal and external fronts.
Iran’s shadowy web of regional proxies—including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and multiple Shiite militias across Iraq and Syria—has long been the linchpin of Tehran’s projection of influence throughout the Middle East. Managed and armed principally by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), these proxies serve to destabilize rivals, threaten Israel, and counter Western interests while minimizing direct risks to Iranian territory itself.
Yet, in recent months, this strategic calculus has been tested as never before. Widespread economic hardship, compounded by unrelenting Western sanctions, soaring inflation, and structural mismanagement, have spurred periodic protests and a pervasive sense of discontent among Iranian citizens. The regime’s costly investment in foreign military campaigns—while Iranians grapple with unemployment, shortages, and political repression—has become a flashpoint for dissent and has weakened popular support.
This internal fragility is occurring against a backdrop of intensifying regional conflicts. Following Hamas’s unprecedented October 7, 2023 terrorist massacre against Israel—the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust—Iran’s sponsorship of such groups has become a focal point for Israeli and American military responses. Israel’s military campaigns in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and against the Houthis in Yemen have further strained Iran’s proxies and exposed elements of the regime’s external apparatus to direct strikes.
According to regional analysts in Cairo, Amman, and Riyadh, Iranian officials have entered urgent deliberations ahead of high-level meetings in Tehran. Sources close to these discussions describe a climate of acute anxiety: the leadership is now openly weighing a reduction or even suspension of proxy support should circumstances threaten regime survival. “No affiliate,” one Arab security expert explains, “is indispensable to the core interests of the government in Tehran if their continued support threatens the regime itself.”
The ‘Axis of Resistance’ Under Strain
The so-called Axis of Resistance—formed by Iran and its regional clients—has experienced increasing attrition. Hezbollah in Lebanon, for decades the Islamic Republic’s most valued asset, faces direct Israeli military pressure along the northern border. In Gaza, intelligence sources suggest that Iranian support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad is under review, with logistical and financial support reportedly curtailed due to the regime’s need to redirect resources toward urgent domestic priorities.
Meanwhile, the Houthis in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq, and pro-Iranian forces in Syria have been subject to regular U.S. and Israeli strikes. Washington and Jerusalem have communicated unequivocal warnings—including deployment of sophisticated air defense and naval assets—to Tehran: attempts to expand hostilities or threaten the security of regional allies will be met with decisive retaliation.
Israel, for its part, maintains that its military operations across multiple theaters—codenamed Iron Swords and other names—are acts of self-defense in a broader war imposed by Iran and its terror clients. Senior Israeli officials and military commanders have reiterated their position: Israel’s policies are driven by the imperative to neutralize existential threats, secure the release of hostages taken by Hamas, and prevent Iranian-backed forces from opening additional fronts.
Internal Tensions in Iran
Inside Iran, the political temperature has reached a boiling point. Since the widespread 2022 “Women, Life, Freedom” protests, the regime’s legitimacy has been eroded by persistent economic woes and demands for more accountability and freedom. The disconnect between the regime’s regional ambitions and the populace’s immediate grievances has never been starker. There is growing evidence, including from social media discourse and public statements by civic groups, that many Iranians question the cost of financing external operations at the expense of domestic wellbeing.
Tehran’s leadership now finds itself at a strategic fork. Within the halls of power, the Supreme Leader, IRGC top brass, and government technocrats debate the perils of continuing regional confrontations versus the option of a partial retrenchment. Hard-liners argue that stepping back would embolden adversaries and weaken the regime’s deterrent posture; pragmatists, however, warn that unchecked escalation might provoke internal collapse or debilitating international intervention.
Repercussions Across the Region
Should Iran scale back support for its proxies, the effects would be profound. In Gaza, such a shift could further isolate Hamas and Islamic Jihad, compounding their battlefield losses and diplomatic isolation in the aftermath of the October 7th massacre and the war that followed. In Lebanon, Hezbollah would face severe financial and operational constraints, prompting a possible recalibration of its posture vis-à-vis Israel and Lebanese society itself. Across Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, a reduction in Iranian backing could push local militias either toward accommodation with central governments or increased fragmentation—potentially opening new opportunities for stabilization, but also risks of renewed chaos.
Meanwhile, the Arab states most threatened by Iranian expansionism—among them Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf monarchies—are closely monitoring these shifts. Many in these capitals view the prospect of Iranian retrenchment as an opportunity to reassert regional order, provided that any change in policy is verified and sustainable.
The International Response
For the United States and key European nations, Iranian moves to distance itself from terrorist proxies would represent a partial achievement of long-standing diplomatic and security goals. Both Washington and its partners, however, remain wary of Tehran’s intentions and insist that any policy shift be accompanied by verifiable actions—not just rhetorical or tactical gestures.
Israeli officials, while welcoming the prospect of reduced external threats, remain vigilant. They emphasize that Israel’s security assessments are grounded in evidence and operational reality; significant force postures and intelligence resources will stay in place as long as Iran retains the capacity to threaten Israeli civilians through direct or indirect means.
Human rights organizations and democracy advocates, meanwhile, express concern that the regime, if insulated from external crises, may intensify its crackdown on internal dissent. The West faces a dilemma: how to deter Iranian malign activity across the region without inadvertently empowering Tehran’s domestic repression machine.
Looking Ahead
As Tehran’s leadership prepares for pivotal decision-making sessions, the regional landscape hangs in the balance. The willingness of Iran to sacrifice its proxies signals both the limits of its regional ambitions and the acute vulnerability of its leadership. In Jerusalem, Cairo, Washington, and Riyadh, policymakers will be watching for clear signals—decisions in Tehran that could reshape alliances, recalibrate security postures, and open the door to scenarios previously deemed implausible.
At the heart of these developments remains the fundamental truth of Israel’s position: the October 7th massacre, orchestrated by Iranian-backed terrorists, was an unprovoked act of war. Israel’s determination to prevent future atrocities underpins its ongoing military campaigns and diplomatic efforts. Any substantive Iranian retreat from proxy warfare would not only represent an acknowledgment of failure by the regime’s long-favored strategy but also an opening for regional and international actors to help stabilize a turbulent Middle East and reinforce the imperatives of sovereign self-defense over terror and subversion.
