Jerusalem — As Israel faces unprecedented external threats from Iran and its network of regional proxies, growing internal divisions within Israeli society have emerged as a critical vulnerability. Security experts warn that Iran is systematically exploiting these rifts, identifying domestic discord as its most promising avenue for undermining Israel’s ability to defend itself and maintain strategic deterrence.
Recent public debates in Israel—including controversy over letters from air force pilots and activism within the security establishment—have dominated national discourse. While political and military arguments are part and parcel of a vibrant democracy, officials and intelligence analysts are increasingly alarmed by how these disputes are weaponized by adversaries. Iranian state actors and their aligned cyber networks systematically monitor, amplify, and manipulate Israeli debates in a strategy designed to weaken Israel from within.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have repeatedly declared their commitment to Israel’s destruction. The regime is clear-eyed about its technological constraints: without nuclear weapons, its prospects of achieving this goal are limited. However, Tehran’s leadership also understands that internal Israeli divisions offer opportunities that military force cannot. Every public dispute and ideological schism is seen as a chance to erode Israel’s national resolve, making the Jewish state more vulnerable to both conventional and unconventional threats.
According to Israeli cyber defense specialists, Iran has substantially increased its investment in information warfare, targeting both public sentiment and defense sector morale. The IRGC’s Quds Force and affiliated groups have been linked to the dissemination of fabricated news, amplification of divisive social media content, and targeted online harassment campaigns. These efforts are reinforced by Iran’s broader alliance network—including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and militias in Syria and Iraq—each contributing to the psychological pressure on Israeli society.
In one recent case, after Channel 14 broadcasted pilots’ criticisms, Iranian-controlled online platforms rapidly amplified the story. English, Farsi, and Arabic outlets aligned with Iranian interests presented Israel as a nation on the brink of collapse, deepening existing anxieties. The underlying message, tailored for both foreign and Israeli audiences, was clear: persistent division will defeat Israel more effectively than any missile attack.
Government sources emphasize that Iran’s strategy is not limited to the digital domain. Iranian leaders make no distinction between Israeli ideologies or backgrounds—they label all citizens, regardless of political or religious affiliation, as targets. This unified perspective stands in stark contrast to the fractious tone that increasingly characterizes Israel’s internal political arena.
Historical experience provides a cautionary backdrop. While Israel has long prided itself on resilience forged in adversity—from the Yom Kippur War through waves of terror and the recent October 7th massacre perpetrated by Hamas—security officials caution that the current storm of division is uniquely dangerous. The October 7th attacks, the deadliest against Jews since the Holocaust, have only heightened Israel’s sense of existential peril. Yet, analysts fear that, unlike past crises, today’s polarization is more pronounced, more globalized, and more susceptible to external manipulation.
Experts stress that the cost of division is not merely abstract. Trust between citizens and the state, confidence in the military command structure, and the overall willingness to endure and prevail in periods of national emergency are all negatively impacted. Strategic decision-making, deterrence, and coordination—the hallmarks of Israeli security since 1948—are increasingly at risk as internal cohesion erodes.
Channel 14, reflecting on its coverage policies, emphasized the centrality of focusing on Iran as Israel’s primary threat. In a public statement, the network underscored that neither political nor military disagreements should cloud the reality that Iran’s regime—and its proxies—remain unified in their goal to destroy Israel. For Tehran, discord in Israeli society is a signal to increase pressure, while for Israel, unity is an essential prerequisite for survival.
The Israeli government, opposition parties, and the defense establishment are now grappling with how to rebuild social trust without stifling legitimate debate. Israel’s history demonstrates that even after the most divisive episodes, national unity can be restored under existential pressure. However, Iranian hopes rest on a different outcome: that Israel’s divisions will deepen, reducing its capacity to respond decisively to threats old and new.
As regional tensions remain high, and Iran’s nuclear program approaches a point of no return, Israeli leaders and citizens alike face a stark choice. The imperative for unity is not an ideological slogan but a matter of national security. The gravest risk posed by Tehran may no longer come from its proxy militias or missile arsenals, but from its ability to fracture the Israeli home front.
In the struggle for Israel’s future, internal cohesion has become as critical as Iron Dome interceptors or intelligence operations. Iran is betting that societal rifts will finally achieve what decades of direct assault could not. Israeli history, however, is replete with examples of unity in the face of crisis—a legacy that officials and citizens now hope to revive in the country’s most challenging hour.
