Mordechai planned at the outset to provoke the evil Gentiles

[edu]

Maharal in his commentary Ohr Chadash:
And all the servants of the king etc. … But Mordechai would not bow; It was written in grammatical form denoting the future, for it was not done just this one time alone, rather many times, he did this, and therefore it is written in the future tense, for this is what the future tense implies concerning something that is continuous, similar to the verse, "Thus would Iyov do", And one should explain that he would not bow, that even though Mordechai could have gone by a different path and not met him and he would not be angry, Mordechai would go against Haman with the intent to do this, not to bow, and not to prostrate, and all in order to  sanctify his Name Let he be blessed (G-d). And there are those raise the question, for what purpose did Mordechai  do this, and he should not have put himself in danger and Israel to provoke the Wicked person? But this is not a difficult question, as we say in the first chapter of Brachot 7B "Those that abandon the Torah will praise the wicked and those that keep the Torah will provoke them". And all the more so a wicked person, who is Haman, that was prepared to be an obstacle and stumbling block for all of Israel… And even without this it is not difficult for Mordechai, sat at the gate of the king, this was due to Achashverosh that appointed him, and one does not remove himself from the appointment (see there).

[edu]

Rabbi Dessler in Michtav M'Eliyahu also admits that Mordechai provoked Haman and in accordance to the words of the Maharal, justified his behavior, However, he also admitted the dangers in this matter.
Rabbi Yekutiel Halberstam also supported Mordechai's provocation of Haman, and he established that both the generation of Mordechai and so too in the door of the footsteps of the Messiah they will be confused between the Evil Man and the Good Man and as a recollection of this we drink on Purim until we don't know the difference. See the link
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=36048&st=&pgnum=371

[edu]

Did Everyone Support Mordechai's Provocation Against the Gentiles?
No! There are some of the Achronim that claim we don't call Megillat Esther by the name of Megillat Mordechai as a penalty to Mordechai, who provoked the Gentiles without being forced to do so.
More than this, within Midrash Tanchuma in one place there is great criticism against Mordechai for provoking the Gentiles. See Midrash Tanchuma (Warsaw) Parshat Vayechi, Siman 6 while in another place within Midrash Tanchuma there is great support for Mordechai who provoked the Gentiles (see Midrash Tanchuma {Buber} Parshat Behar, Siman 9).
And through this we can understand the words of Rabbi Yehoshua Bachrach who brings in the name of Rabbi Y. (probably Yosef) Karo
"And he was acceptable to the majority of his brothers" – but not to all his brothers, for they were complaining after him, saying, "what did this Mordechai do to us. This one that provoked Haman and through him we were sold to be destroyed and killed and obliterated, if not for the fact that Hashem was for us.

[edu]

According to Midrash Shir Hashirim Rabba and Talmud Yerushalmi the future redemption will have some parallels to the Redemption brought by Mordechai
Shir Hashirim Rabba (Vilna) Parsha 6
A [10} Who is she that overlooks like the dawn.
There was an incident where Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Shimon Bar Chalafta were walking together in the valley of Arb'el early before the light of day, and then they saw the earliest rays of light of dawn that cracked through (the darkness). Said Rabbi Chiya Rabba to Rabbi Shimon Bar Chalafta, thus is the redemption of Israel appearing a bit, as it is written (Micha chapter 7) When I dwell in the darkness G-d is a light to me; at the outset it comes, little by little,and afterwards sparkles and comes and afterwards multiplies and afterwards it becomes freshly moist and goes onward, thus at the outset (Esther chapter 2) And Mordechai would sit at the gate of the king and afterwards (Esther chapter 8} And Mordechai went forth from the king with royal garments, and afterwards to the Jews there was light and rejoicing, etc.

[edu]

Further background from the Soncino Translation to Brachot 7B

R. Johanan further said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: It is permitted to contend with the
wicked in this world. For it is said: They that forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the
law contend with them.22 It has been taught to the same effect: R. Dosthai son of R. Mattun says: It
is permitted to contend with the wicked in this world. For it is said: ‘They that forsake the law praise
the wicked, etc.’ — Should somebody whisper to you: But is it not written: Contend not with
evil-doers, neither be thou envious against them that work unrighteousness,23 then you may tell him:
Only one whose conscience smites24 him says so. In fact, ‘Contend not with evil-doers’, means, to
be like them; ‘neither be thou envious against them that work unrighteousness’, means, to be like
them. And so it is said: Let not thy heart envy sinners, but be in the fear of the Lord all the day.25 But
this is not so! For R. Isaac said: If you see a wicked man upon whom fortune26 is smiling, do not
attack him. For it is said: His ways prosper at all times.27 And more than that, he is victorious in the
court of judgment; for it is said: Thy judgments are far above out of his sight.28 And still more than
that, he sees the discomfiture of his enemies; for it is said: As for all his adversaries, he puffeth at
them.29 There is no contradiction. The one [R. Isaac] speaks of his private affairs, the other one [R.
Johanan] of matters of religion.30 If you wish I can say: both speak of matters of religion, and still
there is no contradiction. The one [R. Isaac] speaks of a wicked man upon whom fortune is smiling,
the other one speaks of a wicked man upon whom fortune is not smiling. Or if you wish, I can say,
both speak of a wicked man upon whom fortune is smiling, and still there is no contradiction. The
one [R. Johanan] speaks of a perfectly righteous man, the other one of a man who is not perfectly
righteous. For R. Huna said: What is the meaning of the verse: Wherefore lookest Thou, when they
deal treacherously, and holdest Thy peace, when the wicked swalloweth up the man that is more
righteous than he?31 Can then the wicked swallow up the righteous? Is it not written: The Lord will
not leave him in his hand?32 And is it not written further: There shall no mischief befall the
righteous?33 [You must] therefore [say]: He swallows up the one who is only ‘more righteous than
he’, but he cannot swallow up the perfectly righteous man. If you wish I can say: It is different when
fortune is smiling upon him.
Footnotes
(23) Ps. XXXVII, I. E.V. ‘Fret not thyself’.
(24) Lit., ‘whose heart knocks him’.
(25) Prov. XXIII, 17.
(26) Lit., ‘the hour’.
(27) Ps. X, 5.
(28) Ibid.
(29) Ibid.
(30) You may fight him with regard to religious affairs, but not with regard to his private affairs.
(31) Hab. I, 13.
(32) Ps. XXXVII, 33.
(33) Prov. XII, 21