The Islamic Republic’s New Lease on Life: How the U.S.-Israeli Strikes Empowered the Iranian Regime

Israel’s June 13 assault on Iran, designed to decapitate Tehran’s military and nuclear program, is one of the worst setbacks the Islamic Republic has ever experienced. In less than two weeks, the Israel Defense Forces managed to assassinate dozens of senior Iranian commanders and nuclear scientists. The IDF destroyed many of Iran’s air defense systems and damaged its nuclear facilities. Israel bombed Iran’s energy infrastructure, military bases, and various missile production sites. The strikes were precise, indicating that Israeli intelligence had penetrated the highest levels of Iran’s armed forces and government. And toward the end of the attacks, the United States joined in. As a result, the Iranian military is weaker now than it was just a month earlier.

But instead of collapsing under the shock, the Islamic Republic appears to have gained a new lease on life. The strikes caused a rally-around-the-flag effect as Iranians condemned them and celebrated the government’s response. The Iranian regime mourned its lost officials but swiftly replaced them. The operations thus made the Iranian nation more cohesive and strengthened the hand of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Iranian society is unlikely to become more rigidly Islamist in response to the strikes. To maintain internal stability, the government might even tolerate more social freedoms. But the regime will probably become more repressive, arresting anyone it sees as a traitor. And critically, Iranians may be more willing to accept the state as it is. The country could now have a new social contract, one that prioritizes national security above everything else.

Iran’s national security strategy, however, remains broadly unchanged. The Islamic Republic may be weaker in some ways, but its leaders are proud of having withstood the Israeli and American assaults. They see the substantial damage they inflicted on Israel’s cities as a major achievement. And they continue to believe that demonstrating resolve in the face of aggression is the only way to deter their opponents. Iranian leaders will thus set out to rebuild the country’s network of proxies: the so-called axis of resistance. They will trust diplomacy even less than before. Instead, they will lay the groundwork for a long war of attrition with Israel—and a potential nuclear breakout.

UNITE AND FIGHT

In the weeks before Israel attacked Iran, it seemed as if Tehran and Washington might peacefully resolve their dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. For the first time since abandoning the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018, the nuclear deal that Iran had reached with the United States and other major countries three years earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump’s team indicated it was willing to accept an arrangement in which Iran would be able to enrich uranium up to 3.67 percent—the level the United States agreed to under the JCPOA—rather than no enrichment at all. Tehran, for its part, was once again open to speaking directly to American officials rather than exclusively through mediators. Some analysts believed a new nuclear agreement could be near.

But as negotiations progressed, the Trump administration began walking back its initial flexibility, oscillating between demanding zero enrichment and the full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Israel, meanwhile, steadily degraded Tehran’s position by picking apart Hezbollah (Tehran’s most powerful partner), tearing through Hamas, and taking out some of Iran’s air defenses. The Islamic Republic grew even weaker in December, when rebels toppled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, another faithful Iranian ally. Eventually, a sense of resignation took hold in Tehran: many officials and analysts alike came to believe that—deal or no deal—Israel, the United States, or both would attack.

Tehran still proceeded with caution. It knew that its people were seething after decades of repression and that it risked even more domestic anger if it provoked a direct confrontation with Washington. Iranian officials thus stayed at the negotiating table, hoping to avoid an assault while trying to shore up their domestic backing—for instance, by suspending enforcement of the unpopular law mandating that women fully cover their hair in public and easing other restrictions on freedom of expression.

The Israeli and U.S. attacks led to an outburst of Iranian nationalism.

It is unclear how much these steps helped the government when the first Israeli bombs fell. At first, many ordinary Iranians assumed the conflict would be a short confrontation between two governments that was unlikely to affect them. But as the strikes intensified, targeting infrastructure and killing ordinary citizens, many Iranians began to conclude that the attacks were not merely a war against the regime but a war against the nation itself. These sentiments swelled after Trump and Israeli officials urged Tehran’s residents to evacuate their homes. “I’m no fan of the Islamic Republic, but it’s now time to show solidarity for Iran,” one Tehran resident told the Financial Times. “Trump and Netanyahu say ‘evacuate’ as if they care about our health. How can a city of 10 million evacuate? My husband and I are not going to pave the ground for them. Let them kill us.”

Rather than prompting popular outrage at the Iranian state, the attacks led to an outburst of nationalism. As the Islamic Republic weathered Israel’s assault and retaliated with ballistic missiles of its own, the regime’s response was cheered on by Iranian writers, artists, and singers, many of whom are typically apolitical or in opposition to the government. Iranian commentators across the political spectrum likened the Israeli assault to Nazi Germany’s 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, casting the conflict as Iran’s own patriotic war: a national struggle that transcends politics. Even some longtime dissidents and former political prisoners joined in. For instance, hundreds of political and civil rights activists—many of whom have been previously imprisoned—condemned Israel’s attacks in a joint statement. “In defense of our homeland’s territorial integrity, independence, national defense capabilities, … we stand united and resolute,” it declared. These actors carefully kept some distance from the regime. But their emphasis on solidarity aligned with the government’s message. Israel’s strikes thus relieved some of the internal pressure on the Islamic Republic.

The Iranian government is likely to use this respite to accelerate its militarization in preparation for sustained conflict. Less constrained by domestic pressure, it will channel resources into the IRGC and other armed forces and security agencies, especially since many in Tehran expect the fragile cease-fire to collapse at any moment. But it will struggle to prove that it can handle another war, especially given the extent to which its ranks have been penetrated by Israeli intelligence operatives. Critics have accused the regime of prioritizing ideological loyalty over competence, allowing individuals who simply mouthed hard-line slogans to rise through the ranks while concealing their true allegiances. Others point out the irony that, as the government fixated on enforcing the veiling law and cracking down on political dissidents under the pretext of fighting foreign subversion, its actual adversaries were quietly infiltrating its most sensitive institutions.

The resulting fallout has triggered calls for investigations, accountability, and even the resignation of the senior officials accused of overseeing such a catastrophic intelligence failure. Whether any top official will actually face consequences remains to be seen. But one response already appears certain: Tehran is likely to launch internal purges, expand its surveillance apparatus, and rely on ordinary citizens to participate in monitoring and reporting suspicious activities.

Iran has been summarily executing those it accuses of collaborating with Israel.

(continues in next comment)