The Price of Posturing: How Domestic Audience Costs Fuel Israel-Iran Escalation
The escalating conflict between Israel and Iran reveals a deadly paradox: though both nations might benefit from restraint, each is compelled by internal pressures to appear unyielding. The resulting cycle of violent retaliation, rooted in what international relations scholars term “audience costs,” is less about military advantage and more about ensuring political survival. Under intense scrutiny from domestic factions, both nations’ leaders are compelled to retaliate to avoid being perceived as weak, even when strategic logic might call for diplomacy. Understanding these audience costs is not only key to interpreting Israel and Iran’s actions but is also essential for any international effort to mediate peace in the region. For meaningful de-escalation to occur, both nations must find ways to satisfy domestic pressures without relying on military action.
The Theory of Audience Costs, popularized by James Fearon in 1994, posits that leaders of democratic states are subject to public scrutiny and held accountable for maintaining credibility in international disputes. Leaders who threaten foreign powers face intense pressure to follow through since inaction is perceived as weakness and risks public backlash, endangering their political positions. While Fearon applied this concept to democracies, the Israel-Iran conflict demonstrates that authoritarian regimes also incur audience costs, especially when national identity and ideological resistance shape the political landscape.
Audience Costs in Iran
In Iran, the semi-authoritarian regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) faces significant domestic pressures. Public opinion is a cornerstone of the regime’s legitimacy, and the threat of popular revolt is one it recognizes and fears. While Iran frequently employs swift and brutal crackdowns—a hallmark of authoritarian control—the regime’s responses to protests often extend beyond repression into measures of placation. To quell the 2009 ‘Green Movement’ protests, the government not only suppressed dissent through violence and arrests but also initiated economic reforms, including the introduction of universal cash transfers in 2010, to appease the population. These actions demonstrate the government’s awareness of the need for popular support, a vulnerability further heightened by the ongoing conflict with Israel. When Israel targets Iranian assets, perceived inaction risks domestic accusations of weakness, fueling public frustration and undermining the regime’s authority. This forces Iran to respond decisively, even when strategic restraint would be preferable, demonstrating how audience costs constrain Iranian foreign policy.
Following the September 27 assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in an Israeli airstrike, the IRGC faced a dilemma: exercise restraint or pursue retaliation. Domestic audience costs and the power of public sentiment shaped their decision. In response to protests that erupted in Tehran’s Palestine Square, where demonstrators demanded a show of strength, the IRGC initiated a retaliatory strike, firing an unprecedented 200 ballistic missiles into Israel on October 1. The physical impact was limited as Israel’s Iron Dome intercepted nearly all missiles. Debris injured a singular Gazan civilian, and Israeli Defense Forces reported minimal damage to administrative buildings. However, the symbolism of a show of force resonated with the Iranian public.
The day after the IRGC’s retaliatory missile strikes, thousands of Iranians gathered again in Palestine Square, waving flags and celebrating, marking a significant shift in public sentiment. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei seized this moment to amplify the symbolic impact, praising the strikes as a “shining” achievement for the IRGC during his first appearance at Friday prayers in five years. Through this rhetoric, Khamenei portrayed the IRGC’s actions as a powerful defense of Iranian honor and sovereignty, projecting resilience to a receptive audience. Despite the limited physical damage inflicted on Israeli targets, the operation underscored the IRGC’s role as a protector of national pride and reinforced its image as a steadfast opponent of Israel. By framing the strikes as a bold statement of strength, the regime bolstered its legitimacy amid domestic pressures, using the symbolic value of the attack to align public sentiment with its narrative of resistance.
Audience Costs in Israel
In Israel, domestic audience costs similarly dictate the government’s retaliatory actions. Prime Minister Netanyahu, leading a right-wing coalition, faces immense pressure to maintain a tough stance on national security, especially regarding Iran. Failing to respond to Iranian threats risks undermining his political credibility and fracturing his coalition. After Iran’s missile strikes on October 1, Netanyahu’s response was swift and resolute. He declared, “Iran made a big mistake tonight—and it will pay for it.” This statement, emblematic of the pressure to display strength, was followed by Israeli airstrikes on October 26. These strikes were calibrated to avoid Iran’s nuclear and oil facilities to prevent major escalation, but they nonetheless targeted key military installations. Despite Netanyahu’s bold statements, Iranian sources reported only “minor damage,” which they claimed was “swiftly repaired.”
Government rhetoric following the strikes underscores the centrality of domestic audience costs. Following the October 26 strikes, Lieutenant General Herzi Halevi, Chief of the Israeli General Staff, delivered a forceful statement: “Our message is very, very clear…any threat, anywhere, at any time, we will know how to reach it, we will know how to strike.” Although the military impact of the attack was minimal, Halevi’s language elevated the impact of the operation beyond its physical outcomes. His remarks framed the attack as a decisive demonstration of Israeli resolve and military competence, reinforcing the government’s image as steadfast and capable in the face of external threats. He ensured that domestic expectations for security and retaliation were met, even if the military impact of the strikes was negligible.
Implications for Peacemaking
The limited military impact of these Israeli and Iranian strikes highlights a critical insight into the nature of this conflict: neither side seems willing to push the other into a position where escalation becomes inevitable. Both appear intent on avoiding an all-out war, instead choosing to calibrate their responses. This restraint, however, is counterbalanced by intense domestic pressures demanding displays of strength. Leaders on each side craft bold rhetoric and symbolic strikes to appeal to their audiences, framing these limited retaliations as resolute stands against the enemy. As this pattern of measured military action and amplified rhetoric continues, it fosters a self-perpetuating cycle of escalation, driven not by strategic imperatives but by the necessity of satisfying domestic expectations.
The paradox here is that while both nations seek to control the scope of their actions, each retaliatory strike, though largely symbolic, increases the risk of crossing a tipping point. What should serve as deterrence instead locks Iran and Israel into a pattern of reaction and counter-reaction, where the cumulative effect of these small escalations raises the probability of full-scale conflict. In this fragile equilibrium, the careful restraint displayed in each strike is as much a signal of caution as a warning of the perilous trajectory on which both nations find themselves.
As the international community seeks to mediate this conflict, it is critical to recognize that traditional diplomatic strategies may fail if they do not consider the domestic imperatives behind Israel and Iran’s actions. Mediators must craft settlements that balance de-escalation with opportunities for both parties to project strength to their domestic audiences, ensuring broader acceptance of the terms. For Israel, this could involve securing tangible assurances regarding Iranian military activities, such as a public commitment to scaling back ballistic missile programs, which could be presented as a triumph for Israeli security. For Iran, achieving the removal of specific sanctions targeting its energy sector would be a tangible victory, bolstering its economy and allowing the regime to showcase its resilience against external pressures. Additionally, allowing Iran to participate in regional security dialogues, framed as recognition of its role as a major regional power, could bolster the regime’s ideological narrative of standing firm against external pressure.
Moreover, the Israel-Iran case underscores the need to expand audience cost theory beyond democratic contexts. While Fearon argued that audience costs apply primarily to democracies, Iranian behavior has illustrated that audience costs can be equally relevant in non-democratic states. Manipulating public sentiment therefore offers third-party actors a strategic tool to influence the behavior of authoritarian regimes. Amplifying a regime’s failures to respond to threats – through targeted media campaigns or sanctions that expose its inability to deliver on promises – can heighten internal audience costs, potentially provoking rash actions as the regime seeks to quell domestic dissatisfaction. In certain scenarios, such reactions can serve strategic objectives for third-party actors. Conversely, offering opportunities for symbolic victories, such as diplomatic agreements that reinforce a regime’s image of strength or sovereignty, can reduce domestic pressures and facilitate de-escalation. By leveraging audience costs, third-party actors gain a strategic tool to influence authoritarian behavior without confrontation.
The Israel-Iran conflict exemplifies how domestic audience costs lock states into cycles of escalation that resist traditional diplomatic solutions. Leaders in both nations prioritize satisfying domestic audiences over strategic logic, transforming deterrence into a driver of retaliation. Only by addressing the domestic imperatives driving state actions can mediators craft strategies that break the cycle of retaliation and pave the way for lasting stability.
Views expressed are the author’s own and do not represent the views of GSSR, Georgetown University, or any other entity. Image Credit: CfR