Israel's Octopus Doctrine 2.0: New Phase Of Strategy Directly Targets Iran's Economy And Political Leadership

 

Israel also targeted Iran's South Pars gas field, considered the world's largest natural gas reserve. This has made it clear that Israel's target is no longer just Iran's nuclear activities but also its energy sources and political structures. Experts believe that Israel's strategy is now two-pronged: the first objective is to slow down or eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities. The second goal is to weaken the Iranian military and its command chain. In line with this approach, targeting oil and gas supply lines, as well as disrupting military infrastructure like rocket systems or fuel tanker supply networks, has been observed. Experts believe that currently, there haven't been any major attacks on civilian energy plants, but in the future, plans could change according to circumstances.

Operation Rising Lion Changed Strategy

“Attacks on buildings linked to political and military leadership appear to be an attempt to shock the enemy, disrupt its command chain and slow down its response capabilities," said Filippo Dionigi, a Middle East expert at the University of Bristol.

Balakrishna, Director of Strategic Engagement and Partnerships at Indic Research Forum, believes there has been a significant shift in Israel's strategy. Previously, Israel focused on weakening Iran-backed proxy organisations like Hezbollah (Lebanon), Hamas (Gaza) and other resistance factions. This meant it wasn't directly engaging Iran but targeting its regional network to limit its growing influence. However, 'Operation Rising Lion' in June 2025 showed a more aggressive turn in Israel's policy. This time, it directly attacked Iran's nuclear facilities, missile bases and prominent military leaders.

Three Main Reasons Behind the Change

Balakrishna believes there are some main reasons behind the change in Israel's policy.

Weakening of Iran's Proxy Network: Hezbollah has suffered significant damage, Hamas's strength in Gaza has diminished, and the Assad government in Syria is also weakening. This means Iran no longer has the same regional influence as before.

Growing Apprehension of Nuclear Threat: Israel has received intelligence suggesting that Iran is very close to developing a nuclear bomb. Consequently, Israel attacked nuclear facilities like Natanz and Isfahan to halt Iran's nuclear program in time.

Increased Confidence from Successful Military Operations: In October 2024, Israel destroyed Iran's air defence system, which further boosted its confidence in its capabilities.

Octopus Doctrine Policy

A Middle East expert states that this Israeli strategy is not new. In 2021, then-Prime Minister Naftali Bennett spoke of the 'Octopus Doctrine.' This meant viewing Iran like an octopus, whose arms are groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, but whose brain is the government in Tehran. Until now, Israel had been targeting these 'arms,' meaning the terrorist groups, but now it is directly striking Iran's capital and governance system.

Some analysts believe that Israel's goal is not just to dismantle military or nuclear influence, but also to broadly weaken the regime by fostering social unrest and instability within Iran. An official from the Iran Desk at ITSS Verona, an international security group based in Verona, said that if distrust towards the government grows among the American public, it could put Iran's political existence in crisis.

Israel's Long-Term Goal

Balakrishna says that if we look at Israel's long-term goals now, they appear on two levels. The first objective is to stop or eliminate Iran's nuclear program. That's why it targeted the scientists and centres that were enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels. The second objective is to expose the weaknesses of Iran's military power and its governance system. This might lead to instability in Iran's regime, but Israel is not openly talking about regime change because it's a risky step. Israel expanding its strategic scope beyond nuclear power to attack political and civilian infrastructure on a large scale is a major risk. Dionigi says that this is an existential fight for the Iranian regime. They will use their full military might to continue it.

Iran's Economy Dependent on Oil and Gas

Iran's economy is already heavily reliant on oil and gas. In 2023, it generated approximately USD 53 billion from oil and gas revenues. Attacks on places like South Pars could lead to domestic gas shortages, increasing problems like power cuts, factory closures and public discontent. Israel likely aims to fuel this public dissatisfaction, thereby increasing pressure on the regime. Although Israel itself hasn't stated a desire for regime change, if such attacks escalate, that goal could emerge organically.

A significant point is that Iran's energy system is already struggling with sanctions, corruption and a lack of investment. Therefore, while this attack is symbolically important, its impact might remain limited if larger targets, like Kharg Island (a major oil export terminal), are not attacked in the future.

Attack on Iran's Economic Backbone

Experts believe that targeting Iran's energy assets, such as the South Pars gas field, indicates an attempt to destabilise the Iranian economy and political system beyond its nuclear program. Balakrishna agrees with this, stating that the attack on the South Pars gas field indeed represents a new and serious strategic direction. This marks the first time Israel has directly targeted Iran's energy infrastructure.

This gas field is shared with Qatar and is extremely critical for Iran, as it is the world's largest natural gas reserve. Approximately two-thirds of Iran's total gas comes from here. It is an essential source for domestic energy (electricity, cooking gas, and industry). The attack on its Phase 14 in June 2025 disrupted the production of 12 million cubic meters of gas. Although Iran claimed the damage was minimal, the message was clear: Israel is now attacking not just missiles and the nuclear program, but also Iran's economic backbone.

Impact on Iran's Politics as Well

Dionigi warns that if attacks harm essential civilian needs like electricity and water, people might unite against the attacks on the country instead of becoming angry with the government. Balakrishna believes that if daily life is affected, anger against the government could increase. Nationalism could also rise, meaning the public might stand with the government against foreign attacks. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian's declaration of a harsher response shows a similar reaction.

Is Israel Fueling Anti-Government Movements?

Balakrishna states that Israel's attacks, whether on nuclear facilities, military leaders, or energy infrastructure, all demonstrate a challenge to Iran's power and stability. Furthermore, in a video message in June 2025, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged the Iranian people to rise against their oppressive regime, using slogans like "Woman, Life, Freedom." This was a direct show of support for anti-government movements. The attack on South Pars is also likely to fuel domestic discontent, as it directly impacts the energy supply of ordinary citizens.

However, some former Israeli intelligence officials, like Danny Citrinowicz, suggest that regime change might be an illusion. In other words, Israel might believe that an attack will cause the government to fall, but in reality, there's no easy path to achieve this. Dionigi agrees, stating it's not simple. When an external country interferes in internal politics, the public often rallies behind the very government they were previously upset with.

But can an external power, which has historically been in an arrogant rivalry with the Iranian regime, truly foster an internal rebellion in Iran? Filippo Dionigi explains that external interference in a country's political affairs generally backfires. Sometimes, it creates unity and awakens a sense of national exceptionalism.

Balakrishna states that Iran's theocratic rule has decades of experience in uniting the public by framing foreign attacks as an "assault on national sovereignty." For example, during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, even when Saddam Hussein attacked civilian targets, the public stood by its government.

Does Israel want a regime change in Iran?

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu recently sent a message to the Iranian people, stating, "We hope this campaign will open the path to your freedom." Following this statement, analysts suspect that Israel is now attempting not just to reduce security threats but to bring about regime change in Iran. Balakrishna notes that the Iranian government has faced decades of sanctions, protests and internal crises, yet it has remained in power. For instance, the 'Woman, Life, Freedom' movement in 2022 was very widespread, but the government suppressed it. Even now, new officials were immediately appointed to replace those killed in 'Operation Rising Lion,' indicating institutional stability within the regime.

Furthermore, Israel alone lacks the capability to completely destroy Iran's deeply buried nuclear facilities (like Fordow). This would likely require American cooperation.

Therefore, the conclusion is that while Israel's attacks might contain an underlying intention for regime change, there's no clear roadmap for it. History and practical considerations show that such a strategy is very difficult to succeed.

India Is Also Concerned

India is concerned about these developments as it advocates for peace in West Asia. Balakrishna states that India believes such attacks could lead to instability in the energy market, which could harm both the global and Indian economies. Therefore, India consistently supports policies of dialogue and de-escalation.

This is a very serious situation for India because India's energy security is deeply linked to the Persian Gulf, especially the Strait of Hormuz. This strait sees the daily transit of 21 per cent of the world's LNG and 14 million barrels of oil. If tensions escalate in this route, India's economy and indeed the global economy could be impacted. Hence, India repeatedly calls for dialogue and peace.

Indian Businesses Cite Deepening Uncertainty Due to Current Environment

As the Israel-Iran conflict escalates, the government should immediately review energy-related risk scenarios, diversify crude oil supplies and ensure that strategic reserves are adequate. This statement came from the think tank Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI). GTRI stated that due to the war, the collateral risks of economic impacts on India have increased, with deepening uncertainty regarding energy security, trade routes and major commercial interests.

Ajay Srivastava, founder of GTRI, stated that the escalating conflict and regional tensions pose a direct threat to India's strategic and economic relations with West Asia. He further added that India's trade is significantly intertwined with both of these conflicting nations.

Hemant Bangur, Chairman of the Indian Tea Association, stated that exporters are taking a cautious approach to purchasing Orthodox tea. This is due to the uncertainty surrounding shipments to Iran and concerns about receiving payments from importers there. Exporters have shown caution in buying Orthodox tea through auctions, as they are unsure about the volume of shipments to Iran and harbor apprehensions regarding payments. Consequently, both the sales percentage and price of Orthodox tea have declined.

Impact on Netanyahu's Politics

Balakrishna believes that if these attacks halt Iran's nuclear program, Netanyahu could gain the image of a decisive leader. However, if the war drags on, the Israeli public might grow weary. This is especially true since, even after 20 months of the Gaza war, not all hostages have been freed, and there has already been an economic loss of 14 billion shekels. Netanyahu's popularity is already declining, with a June 18 survey showing only 34 per cent public support. He is also facing increasing international pressure.

Reason for Enmity Hidden in the Past

In the Middle East, when external countries have attempted to change regimes, the results have mostly been negative. For instance, in 2003, the U.S. removed Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but this was followed by civil war, violence and the rise of terrorist groups like ISIS. Similarly, in 2011, Gaddafi was ousted in Libya, but the country remains unstable and conflict-ridden to this day. This demonstrates that merely using military attacks to overthrow governments is not easy and at times, it can worsen the situation.

(This article was translated for The Daily Jagran by Akansha Pandey.)