Narrative Shift: Israeli-US Strikes Strengthen Iran's Resolve
One under-appreciated aspect of the Israeli-Iranian conflict was how it has galvanized the hardliners in Iran, with some believing that it effectively centralized power around the military hawk faction, rather than fomenting discord and disarray as the West had hoped.
The Economist most recently delved into this:
We saw that during the conflict, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei delegated war decisions to an IRGC shura council, allowing them to make all necessary military responses without his immediate oversight.
Now Economist writes how the Israeli—and previous American—strikes actually helped wipe out the ‘moderates’ and install a far hardier class of military commanders:
As the IRGC gains control its elite is being transformed at speed by Israel’s assassinations. Gone are the veteran commanders who for years pursued “strategic patience”, limiting their fire when their totemic leader, Qassem Soleimani, was assassinated in 2020, and holding it when Israel battered their proxies, Hamas and Hizbullah, in 2024. Now a new generation, impatient and more dogmatic, has taken their place and is bent on redeeming national pride. “The maximalist position has been strengthened,” says an academic close to the reformist camp. He claims the decision-makers in place before the war were debating whether to ditch their anti-Israel stance. But “everyone is now a hardliner”.
They even declare that for the first time since the 1979 revolution, the military has gained supremacy over the ‘clerics’, which could explain why Khamenei had notably gone ‘absent’ during the latter half of the brief war.
But in the medium term it could signal that the regime becomes more extreme, not more pragmatic, under the pressure of a devastating military campaign.
What’s more is that Iran’s elites appear to be ‘coalescing’, whereas a year ago there was great infighting and disagreement on the direction of the country vis-a-vis international pressures; now the ‘moderate’ faction is silenced in favor of the bold patriots. This is similar to the natural selection process which took place in the Russian elite circles around the time of the SMO. This was most obviously seen when the Majlis declared its unanimity in closing the Strait of Hormuz, which we’ll get to in a minute.
Most eye-opening was the Economist’s admission that Israel’s strikes on civilian targets had actually served to unite Iranian society. This alone flies in the face of daily narratives we’ve been fed about Iran being in tatters, and that disillusioned citizens are waiting with open arms for Reza Pahlavi to depose the ‘theocratic regime’. One supposes Iranian citizens didn’t particularly enjoy scenes like this one released today for the first time, showing an Israeli strike on central Tehran during last month’s attacks:
From the article:
Early admiration for Israel’s military prowess has turned to outrage as its targets have widened and the death toll has mounted. Scorn for the IRGC’s haplessness has turned to pride at the speed with which it has reconstituted. Iranians who fled the capital are coming back. Those who once championed Israel are now handing over suspected Israeli agents to the police. Female political prisoners, the mothers of executed protesters and exiled Iranian pop stars have all issued calls to rally to Iran’s defence. “It’s backfired on Bibi,” says a former official turned dissident…
The Economist’s sources are convinced that Israeli strikes have made it certain that Iran will now “dash” to get the bomb—and why shouldn’t it?
Just compare Iran’s new Chief of Staff, Major General Mousavi (left), to his predecessor Mohammad Bagheri (right) who was killed in the Israeli strikes:
“Should the need come for a military response, it will be stronger and more crushing than before.”
— Iran’s new Chief of Staff, Maj. General Mousavi
Now it has come to light that the possible real reason for why the US decided to pull the plug on mission Iran so fast was because after the affirming parliamentary vote, Iran did in fact begin loading up ships with naval mines to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Summary:
The U.S. was seriously concerned about a potential blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters reports, citing sources. Following Israel’s first missile strike on June 13, Iran reportedly loaded naval mines onto vessels in the Persian Gulf.
A blockade of this key global shipping route could have dealt a major blow to international trade and driven up energy prices, as roughly 20% of the world’s oil and gas supply passes through the strait.
However, U.S. officials acknowledged it may have been an Iranian bluff.
Sure, we know the prevailing excuse that only 11% of US oil comes through Hormuz, and such a blockade would have affected China and its spheres more. This is a simplistic projection, as secondary effects on the global markets would have still resulted in major repercussions for the US economy via supply chain disruptions, manufacturing cost spikes, massive political pressure and perceived weakness of US’ capabilities as regional enforcer, etc.
M.K. Bhadrakumar corroborates that Iranian elite are ‘hardening’ in their positions:
While diplomats are doing their job, Iran's position hardening like nobody's business after US air strike. Trump badly misjudged Iran's national mood, psyche. Broujerdi a hugely influential politician & veteran diplomat [is] articulating majority opinion in the Majlis.
US seems to factor in collision course/ confrontation/conflict with Iran, having played out all its diplomatic cards. Politico, New York Times report US is holding back supplies of ammo, air defence, etc. for Ukraine as Pentagon stocks are running low & Israel gets priority.
He refers to Iranian MP and member of the National Security Committee Broujerdi who states below that Iran will enrich uranium to whatever level it sees fit, including 90%:
Iran has likewise continued to stay defiant against the criminal IAEA, suspending cooperation with them and banning director Rafael Grossi from its nuclear sites. It seems Iran is confident of the deterrence gained by the damage it served upon Israel with its strikes, and is not willing to bow or kneel to further pressure.
Interestingly, there are now unverified reports that claim Israel is secretly urging Russia to intervene:
-"Israel is holding quiet high-level talks with Russia to pursue a diplomatic solution on Iran and Syria, as the ceasefire with Iran remains in effect," - Israeli Broadcasting Corporation.
Israel has outlined its desire for a status quo where it gets to merely bombard Iran at will, any time it chooses, in order to “enforce” the made up regulations it pretends to impose on Iran; i.e. the same status quo now accepted as normal with regard to Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Palestine—where Israel can bomb at its whim.
Just read this stunning new revelation from the Israeli Ma’ariv paper:
JUST IN:
IAF Dropped leftover Interception munitions on Gaza, It was first voluntary then it became a policy.
During Israel’s 12-day war against Iran, Israeli Air Force pilots returning from intercept missions still carrying unused munitions asked to drop them on Gaza instead of landing fully loaded.
This began as a ‘local initiative’ but quickly became a routine. Pilots dropped leftover bombs in Gaza to ‘support ground forces in Khan Younis and northern Gaza’. Air Force Commander Tomer Bar approved expanding the practice to all squadrons. As a result, Gaza was hit with intensified airstrikes daily, with dozens of jets dropping hundreds of munitions on Palestinians without needing extra deployments. A military official said this strategy boosted the Air Force’s efficiency, saving resources and increasing firepower across multiple fronts.
Source: Hebrew Maariv.
The problem is, each time it does this Iran will likely respond with another round of crushing blows on Israeli cities which will not go over well with the frayed citizenry.
It will be politically disastrous as the populace will see the government’s “unnecessary” provocations on Iran as greatly endangering them for no tangible benefits.
Where things stand now is Iran—via FM Araghchi—demands some kind of guarantee that any future negotiations would not be used as another ruse to attack Iran, as was just done twice in a row by Trump. But at this point, who can trust the US’ word?
The US appears to be acting out of a greater sense of desperation to restart talks, rather than Iran, which is in no hurry:
London Times article with Washington dateline, apparently well sourced, says that Witkoff is "frantically" communicating with Iranian officials "through direct and indirect channels" to get talks restarted; the "race is on" to secure a nuclear deal urgently despite Trump's insistence to the contrary; Witkoff can offer sanctions relief as inducement to Iran to negotiate and "signing up to a long term deal to replace" the 2015 JCPOA, which is expiring in October.
Even as of this writing Iranian government planes have reportedly returned from Oman, which signals possible talks with US counterparts. We can only hope that behind Trump’s outward bluster, the US has some sense and is able to compromise toward a broader Mideast deal.
—
As a corollary, here’s CNN stunned by the latest polls showing the sea change in Democrats’ perceptions of Israel:
This is a major reason for why Israel is in such dire straits—the next generation of Americans will no longer support Israel’s domination of the US Congress. Israel will have no choice but to come up with inventive new methods or false flags to keep Americans in line, because without the US’ support, Israel will cease to be as a nation in the Middle East.
But Israeli hardliners know this, and it’s one of the reasons they have chosen to destroy or break up Iran now, before it’s too late.