I would argue that a general war need not occur in order for the regime to use an Israeli strike as an excuse to consolidate its rule at a time when so many socio-economic and demographic factors threaten it. Oil prices are low, inflation and unemployment are high, the Supreme Leader is old, and, most importantly, 70% of the population is under 30. Meanwhile, ethnic unrest among the Baluchis, Kurds, Arabs, and Azeris has been higher than ever since the Revolution.

In other words, the “internal contradictions” in Iranian society (to use a bit of Marxian lingo) are the regime’s worst enemies. We can see this in the IRGC’s shift in strategy from preparations for total war towards preparations for low-intensity velvet/orange/etc.-style revolutions and domestic unrest. We are dealing, in other words, with an insecure creature. In this context, an excuse to once again rally the people behind “sacred defense” is exactly what the Mullahs want. That’s why they sow enmity towards Israel and the US, that’s why they sponsor Hizbullah and HAMAS.

Now all that said, it may still be the case that Israel’s fundamental security vis-a-vis the possibility of a nuclearized IRI overrides any concerns about whether or not a strike may or may not prolong the regime. I would completely understand this line of thinking from an Israeli perspective. But as an Iranian, it troubles me.

1.
No one is proposing the invasion of Iran and the overthrow of the regime so I am not sure how the factors you outline relating to the Iran-Iraq would apply. If Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities that would sure represent an escalation in the ongoing hostilities between the two nations but a general war would only result if the ayatollahs wanted it.

If this did happen then then the considerations you sketch above might still not apply because the distance between the countries and the disparity in their respective air power dictates that anything but a brief and very bloody rocket-delivered slugfest is unlikely.

2.
I also have great difficulty with the general idea that if you hurt your enemy badly you are in fact only making him stronger. It seems to be a logic applied only to Israel. Nobody suggests that Baathism in Iraq is in fact stronger now that Saddam is dead and his regime destroyed , do they? One could think of other examples…

I truly hate to admit it, but this is probably true.

Much of the Iranian opposition views the Iran-Iraq war as the event which solidified the Islamic Republic’s rule right after the revolution. By rallying the vast majority of Iranians behind the notion of defaa-e moghaddas (”sacred defense”), the regime was able to consolidate its power, essentially arguing that any domestic disagreement has to be put aside until the nation is secure, etc. By the time the war was over, the country was spent and no one was left willing to stand up to the regime.

When it comes to Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, even the most bitter opponents of the IRI (say, Monarchists or Leftists) may be willing to set aside their differences to defend Iran.