Israel launched an extraordinary and aggressive military campaign against Iran, targeting not just military installations but primarily Iran’s senior military leadership. On the very first day of the assault, several top Iranian commanders were killed. In retaliation, Iran unleashed a barrage of missile strikes on Israel, severely disrupting civilian life across the country.
The United States attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities using bunker-buster bombs. In response, Iran targeted American bases in Qatar and Iraq. However, shortly after, and as expected, a ceasefire was declared between Iran and Israel.
Iran’s Response and Domestic Impact
Iran displayed resilience during the conflict and did not prove to be an easy target for Israel. However, the country suffered significant losses—most notably the death of key military and nuclear scientists and damage to its nuclear facilities. These visible wounds cannot be concealed with rhetorical cover-ups.
Israel, in this war, leveraged a vast intelligence network, likely built over years of investment. Its ability to hit precise targets intensified the challenges for Iran. Yet, Iran responded with strength and determination, reinforcing its strategic standing in the region. As I noted in a previous article, the Iran-Israel conflict is not merely a bilateral issue; it reflects Israel’s wider ambitions for regional dominance, posing a threat to Arab nations as well. Until the Palestinian issue is resolved and Israel abandons its aggressive and expansionist doctrine, the danger of this spark turning into a full-scale blaze remains ever-present. For now, this is just a pause—Israel may be realigning its pieces, while Iran is likely reassessing its defense vulnerabilities.
Regional and Global Context
It’s clear that without Iran’s capacity to maintain a balance of power, restraining Israel is nearly impossible. But how can Iran achieve this? In the past, Iran pursued a strategy of fighting its wars beyond its borders, which was fairly successful. However, after the heavy losses suffered by its non-state allies under the so-called “Axis of Resistance,” and with the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, Iran’s defense strategy has now contracted inward to its own territory.
Iran’s state media paints an unrealistic picture—some may find this useful, but even within the country’s power structures, opinions on this are divided. Greater access to independent media and social platforms would benefit the Iranian public. Government control over all media renders it ineffective—while it may comfort like-minded audiences, even the propagandists themselves know the narratives are hollow. This isn’t just a problem with the state—long-time opponents of the regime also often rely on falsehoods when speaking about Iranian society and governance.
To escape this delusion, Iran must grant its citizens access to information and the right to free expression. Focus must shift from imaginary threats to real dangers. A free press keeps society balanced, and awareness of facts helps people make informed decisions. Knowledge should not be reserved for a select few—otherwise, large segments of the population will remain intellectually disadvantaged.
Public Reaction and Internal Stability
During the twelve-day war, the Iranian public remained calm, enabling the government to focus on its defense—this was an unexpected and jarring message for Israel and the regime’s external opponents. Those who believed the attacks would spark a popular uprising or an armed rebellion inside Iran were proven wrong. Self-styled royal heir Reza Shah Pahlavi continued issuing such calls, but they fell on deaf ears. In reality, he is a politically irrelevant and ineffective figure living in a fantasy where he imagines himself as Iran’s rightful monarch.
Iran & Its Ethnic Dynamics and Internal Forces
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which is the backbone and guarantor of the current Iranian regime, will likely re-evaluate its domestic and foreign policies in the coming days. Two main political camps—hardliners and moderates—have long been in soft or sharp conflict with each other. But there’s a third force in Iran often overlooked: the country’s diverse ethnic groups and their distinct national identities.
There exists an ultra-conservative faction that openly denies the historical and cultural diversity of these nations, opposes their constitutional rights, and blocks their recognition. This group believes that acknowledging such diversity threatens Iran’s unity. Yet, these communities are the historical custodians of the culture of this land now known as Iran. Ethnic and linguistic identities do not divide a country—they enrich and strengthen it. Iran’s history and cultural legacy can serve as a bridge rather than a barrier. Those who seek unity through contradiction must identify the true elements that actually hold Iran together.
In the recent Iran-Israel conflict, except for a limited faction, many nations with historical grievances against the central government took a clear stand against Israel and rejected any option involving foreign interference to change the Iranian regime. This presents an opportunity for the IRGC to clearly distinguish between real and imagined enemies.
In the past, the system has been deliberately pitted against ancient nations like the Baloch and Kurds. Figures like Reza Shah Pahlavi and infiltrative foreign forces, including Israeli intelligence, have tried to exploit these nations for their own gain, shedding their blood to serve others’ interests. Iran’s leaders must ensure that such nations are not left vulnerable to foreign manipulation.
Based on my personal observation, there are elements within the IRGC and the government who deeply understand this conspiracy, but their efforts are constantly undermined by visible and invisible powers. If the IRGC now seriously addresses this issue, we will see policy shifts reflected in the changing dynamics of Balochistan and Kurdistan.
Furthermore, long-time opponents of the regime must approach Iranian authorities with more targeted and fair-minded strategies. Ignoring these internal sparks is not in Iran’s interest.
The Role of the U.S., Trump, and Israel
Israel will not stop its subversive activities against Iran. However, the current U.S. President, Donald Trump, is a unique figure who could prove beneficial to Iran—if Iran responds constructively. Despite inconsistencies between Trump’s statements and actions, it would be biased not to acknowledge that he is an unconventional but effective global leader who, with a realistic approach, often achieves practical outcomes.
Many believe that the U.S. attacks on Iran were less about harming Iran and more about restraining Israel—who, under the pretext of targeting nuclear sites, was actually striking Iran’s leadership and civilian institutions. Even the state broadcaster Sada-o-Sima was attacked, exposing the dubious nature of Israel’s motives. Reports suggest that Trump personally opposed and stopped a planned assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Iran’s leadership may dislike Trump, but he may be the only one capable of pulling Iran out of its economic and diplomatic isolation and guiding it toward stability and development. A globally stronger Iran can play a more constructive role in resolving regional issues than one that isolates itself by imagining America and Europe as permanent enemies.
Trump is not the type to meddle in others’ internal affairs—he is more concerned with trade and regional cooperation. Iran’s rulers must now make bolder, less conventional decisions and move towards coexistence with the U.S., rather than confrontation. Israel will, of course, use both traditional and covert means to sabotage any such effort—its deep ties with Washington will support this diplomatically, and Mossad will work internally to keep Iran off a realistic course. In the coming days, Mossad may be Iran’s greatest challenge—achieving maximum impact with minimal resources while remaining invisible.
New Regional Opportunities for Iran
The 12 Day war has opened new doors for Iran to strengthen its regional relationships. Tehran has shown signs of willingness to seize these opportunities. However, slogans like “Brother Islamic Nations” will no longer suffice. Real, practical steps are needed to bind regional nations together through shared interests.
Iran must recognize that it cannot defend its interests in isolation. Constructive engagement with Arab nations to address political, social, and ideological differences will require tact, patience, and sincerity.
Written By – Qazi Dad Mohammad Rehan
Qazi Dad Mohammad Rehan is the Information and Cultural Secretary of BNM. He also served in this position from 2008 to 2009 as the youngest cabinet member in Party History. And founded the party’s printing organization Zrumbesh Publications. Founded and served as Director of Zrumbush Broadcasting Corporation in 2015. Re-elected Information Secretary in the April 2022 session.
Note: The opinions reflected in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views and editorial line of ForPol.
