Last week, Hamas’ political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, was assassinated in Tehran, marking a significant embarrassment for a regime that prides itself on being the dominant power in the region.

To explain away the failure of its security and intelligence services, the regime and its supporters are highlighting how they have trapped Israel with their proxy forces: Hamas attacking from the south, Hezbollah from the north, and Houthis along with Iraqi militias launching missiles towards Tel Aviv and other parts of Israel. They claim to have brought Israel to its knees by launching more than 300 missiles and drones at its soil, which were only destroyed by the assistance from the U.S and Israel’s neigbours.

Such arguments when put in the context reveal that Iran’s security and national interests are not priorities for the regime and its supporters. They view global affairs as a zero-sum game, aiming to eradicate the opposition regardless of the cost to their own country and people. They set a goal to annihilate Israel about 40 years ago and have been heavily and consistently investing to achieve it since then. However, the one-million-dollar question is why they have set such a goal; what national interest it serves.

The answer is that the regime does not see the world from the lens of Iran’s national interests. Annihilation of Israel is a holy goal for the regime, aiming for the victory of the Islam and Muslims over Jews. It serves the ideological aspirations of the regime’s leader to become the Calipha of the Muslim world.

This reflects a mindset, focused more on proving dominance than on strategic, national benefit, and it is the primary difference between the foreign policies of Israel and the Islamic Republic.

Both states might seem to engage in bold and reckless actions. However, unlike the Islamic Republic, Israel operates on a rationale that serves its national interests.

Israeli operations, whether assassinations or bombings, target individuals crucial to threats against Israel’s security. They pursue actions that, while possibly harsh or dangerous or unethical, are always rooted in serving their national interests.

In addition to their focus on national security from a military perspective, Israelis have been actively engaged with the Arab states to expand their bilateral and regional relationships. Israel’s significant investment in military security and arms developments has not come at the expense of their economic or social development.

In contrast, the Islamic Republic’s decisions lack such rationality. Their foreign policies prioritise displays of military might and machismo, ignoring the broader modern understanding that national interests encompass more than just military power. Cooperation, economic, and cultural relationships are crucial in the contemporary global order for achieving national security, which itself is a multifaceted concept including economic, food, energy, and environmental aspects.

The regime’s leaders remain trapped in an outdated view of power politics, seeing all international affairs through the narrow lens of military might. This narrow-minded view has led to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the rational, interest-based decisions of other regional leaders. Unable to comprehend the priority of national interests over ideological aspirations in the actions and decisions of the Arab states, the regime’s leader and officials have always looked down on the Arab leaders in the region labelling them as timid and traitorous.

Since its establishment in 1979 until this day, the regime has sacrificed Iran’s national interests for its ideological ambitions, blinded by dogmatism both domestically and internationally.

As such, its end will come when the aspirations of ordinary people for an ordinary life, not a utopian one, prevail. The antithesis of the ideological utopia they have been dragging Iranians to is this ordinary life.