Bernard Hourcade: “Israel wants a weakened Iran – chaos is one way to achieve it”

Bernard Hourcade: “Israel wants a weakened Iran – chaos is one way to achieve it”

Bernard Hourcadeemeritus research director at National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), is undoubtedly one of the best French specialists on Iran. A recognized geographer and Iranologist, he has analyzed the political, social and territorial dynamics of the Islamic Republic for several decades with a rigor that contrasts with the simplistic readings often dominant in the mainstream media. Where certain television sets prefer to invite commentators who are more ready to express opinions than to deliver substantiated analyses, Bernard Hourcade provides a nuanced reading, based on detailed knowledge of the Iranian terrain and the regional balance of power.

In an interview given to Figaro (see video below) he states in particular: “The Israelis would like the regime to fall. Yes, the fall of the Islamic Republic, no one will regret it, starting with the Iranians, for at least 90% of them. But for Israel, they have no military fear. I was often in Israel to discuss security and nuclear issues; they said: we have 150 or 200 nuclear warheads. It is not Iran that scares us militarily. But we don’t want Iran – even if the shah’s son came back – to have a capacity to make a nuclear weapon from a political point of view. Having a nuclear weapon means political power, domination, being a member of the UN Security Council, etc. So what Israel fears is not the Iranian regime, which is detestable, but it is perhaps not the worst. This is the strong Iranian state. Israel wants a weak Iran. He wants chaos in Iran at the limit. Chaos is a way to weaken Iran. »

This analysis, far from the usual caricatures, clearly distinguishes the rejection of an authoritarian regime and the strategic fear of a powerful regional state. Hourcade highlights a dimension that is often overlooked: beyond ideology, it is the balance of power in the Middle East that structures security policies. His remarks invite us to go beyond binary reading grids – “democracy versus dictatorship”, “axis of evil against the free world” – to question real geopolitical logics: nuclear deterrence, international status, regional rivalry and the management of power relations.

In a media landscape saturated with emotional analyzes and stories aligned with dominant Western narratives, this expert speech reminds us that no international situation can be understood without placing States in their long-term strategies.