As the dust settles on the 12-day Israeli war on Iran, few voices within the Islamic Republic offer as sweeping a perspective on its global implications as Dr. Seyyed Yasser Jebraily. A prominent political scientist, Jebraily is one of Iran's foremost intellectuals and analysts.

Dr. Jebraily is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. He served for five years as the Head of the Center for Strategic Evaluation and Supervision of the Implementation of Macro-Policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Expediency Council. He is also the founder of the recently established New Islamic Civilization Party.

In this exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen English, Dr. Jebraily contends that the Israeli assault on Iran was not merely a failed military operation, but a desperate and doomed bid to reshape the regional order in Tel Aviv’s favor. He dissects the broader geopolitical architecture that underpinned the war, exposing what he calls a "strategic miscalculation rooted in despair." According to Jebraily, the war was not just a war between Iran and "Israel", it was a referendum on hegemony in a post-American West Asia.

From deterrence theory and the symbolism of Iran’s nuclear program, to the failed attempt at regime change and the deeper meanings of True Promise 3, Jebraily takes us through the war’s visible and invisible fronts, and where he believes the Islamic Republic is heading next.

***********************

Looking into the 12-day war on Iran in retrospect, doubtless, the outlook on things must now be in a much clearer place. With that in mind, how do you see the Israeli war on Iran? Was it a miscalculation by the Israelis or a logical step, considering their advances in the region over the past year?

I believe war must be understood not merely as a military confrontation but fundamentally as a strategic phenomenon. To assess the recent 12-day war on Iran, one cannot restrict the analysis to battlefield outcomes or missile exchanges. We need to place it within its broader geopolitical architecture. What were "Israel’s" strategic calculations? What regional and global shifts shaped the context in which this war unfolded?

Just as the war in Ukraine must be seen as a symptom of a collapsing post-Cold War liberal order, the wars and conflicts in West Asia over the past years must also be interpreted in the context of a transitioning global system. There is a growing consensus among international scholars and analysts that we are entering a post-unipolar, multipolar world order. In such a world, naturally, every regional actor seeks hegemonic status within its respective sphere of influence.

My assessment is that the United States, recognizing its declining capacity to maintain direct dominance over West Asia, had initiated a long-term strategy to elevate "Israel" as the regional hegemon in the emerging post-American order. This strategy operated across multiple dimensions. Militarily, Washington ensured that “Israel” remained the most heavily armed power in the region. Politically, the "Abraham Accords" were launched to normalize relations between “Israel” and several Arab states, effectively integrating "Israel" into the regional political architecture. Economically, the IMEC (India–Middle East–Europe Corridor) initiative aimed to place "Israel" at the heart of a new transregional trade route.

However, the October 7 operation in 2023 by the Palestinian Resistance disrupted this entire design. It exposed the fragility of "Israel’s" deterrence and severely undermined its bid for uncontested regional dominance. In response, "Israel" escalated to what it considered a total war, a war of survival, not only against the Palestinian Resistance but against the broader Axis of Resistance, with Iran as its central pillar.

Now, to the core of your question: was the Israeli strike on Iran a miscalculation or a logical move? I would say it was a desperate gamble: a calculated step, perhaps, but one taken from a position of strategic despair. "Israel" viewed the elimination of the Resistance front and the toppling of the Islamic Republic as prerequisites for securing its regional hegemony. That was its strategic objective.

Did the Resistance suffer? Of course. This was an existential war. And to think any side in such a war emerges unscathed is naive. But did "Israel" achieve its goals? Was the Resistance dismantled? Did the Islamic Republic collapse? The answer is categorically no.

The outcome is thus clear: "Israel" lost the bet. Its regional stature is in decline. Public morale within Israeli society is fractured. Emigration from occupied Palestine, which had accelerated since October 7, has intensified further. And one must not overlook the internal socio-economic crisis: years of neoliberal policy have eroded "Israel’s" social cohesion and generated staggering inequality. According to several indicators, the occupied territories are now among the most unequal regions in the world.

When you combine this economic volatility with a declining sense of security, you get a society on the brink. Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic of Iran, despite being the target of a direct and high-stakes attack, has emerged more resilient. The Iranian people, even those who may have had critical views of their government, largely unified in defense of their sovereignty. In fact, "Israel’s" aggression inadvertently reinforced domestic cohesion within Iran and triggered a rare moment of near-unanimous support for the state, especially for the leadership of the Islamic Revolution.

How did the Iranian people take the war? There’s much talk on social media and Western media of Iranians feeling frustrated with the Islamic Republic and the nuclear program, and that they’ve "just had enough". How were things like in reality on the ground? What does the nuclear program mean for the Iranian people?

One of the great ironies of our time is how far Western media narratives often diverge from realities on the ground, especially in countries like Iran. I must say quite directly: what was witnessed inside Iran during the recent war was not disillusionment or disintegration, but a dramatic surge in national unity and collective defiance.

Of course, like in any vibrant society, there are critical voices in Iran. We are not a monolith. Iranians debate, disagree, and protest, and they do so loudly. But when the homeland is attacked, and especially when it is attacked by a regime like “Israel” that has committed egregious atrocities against civilians and enjoys uncritical Western backing, something profound happens: the differences become secondary, and the defense of sovereignty becomes paramount.

This was exactly what happened during the war. The response of the Iranian people was not one of "frustration" with the Islamic Republic, as Western pundits often imagine in their echo chambers. It was one of dignity, clarity, and resolve. Millions across the country mobilized, through official institutions, civil society, and grassroots networks, to support the state in its defense posture. The Iranian flag flew higher, not lower.

Let us speak about the nuclear program for a moment. In Western discourse, it is often framed as a source of fear or a burden on the Iranian people. But for many Iranians, the nuclear program is not about weapons. It is a symbol of national independence, technological sovereignty, and refusal to be bullied into scientific apartheid. The same nations that colonized the world, dropped atomic bombs on civilians, and supported brutal wars, now lecture others on "responsible science"? That hypocrisy is not lost on ordinary Iranians.

You ask what the nuclear program means to the Iranian people. I can tell you: it means dignity. It means resistance against coercion. It means that Iran will not be treated as a second-class state in the global order. And this is not an elite perspective; it is shared widely across the political and social spectrum, especially when pressure mounts from the outside.

So no, the war did not erode Iranian morale, and it did not turn the people against their government. On the contrary, it revealed the depth of national cohesion when sovereignty is threatened. And it reminded many observers around the world that despite all the pressures, sanctions, sabotage, and cyber attacks, Iran remains a state with a remarkably resilient population and a powerful sense of identity.

Western media may continue to chase the illusion that "the people have had enough." But those who actually walked the streets of Iran during the war saw a very different picture: a nation that, while complex and plural, stands united in defense of its independence and future.

Related News

US reportedly considers sending long-range ATACMS missiles to Kiev

Bolton dismisses Trump’s Nobel hopes over Ukraine policy shift

How do you see Iran’s True Promise 3? Many people have characterized Iran’s response as being long overdue, with people citing delays in True Promise 1 and especially True Promise 2 as examples. So was it delayed or wasn’t it?

Let me be very clear: True Promise 3 was a strategic earthquake. It shattered not only "Israel’s" illusions of invincibility but also the broader perception that Iran would remain in a posture of restraint while facing existential threats. The scale, precision, and audacity of the operation forced even those who had been calling for "unconditional surrender”, like US President Donald Trump, to recalibrate their tone. As Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, accurately stated, "Israel was crushed," and even Trump admitted: "Israel got hit hard."

Was it late? That depends on your vantage point. From the outside, it's easy to critique timing. But from within the national security framework, decisions on the use of force are never merely reactive or emotional; they are multidimensional, calibrated, and deeply strategic. There are diplomatic, military, intelligence, and political layers involved, many of which the public may never fully see.

Would I, if I were president and chair of the Supreme National Security Council, have made different choices about the timing? Perhaps, but that is not a conversation I am willing to have publicly at this point. What I will say is this: when Iran struck, it struck with such force and clarity that it not only restored deterrence but redefined the rules of engagement in the region. From Tel Aviv to Washington, everyone is now recalculating.

True Promise 1 and True Promise 2 may have appeared restrained to some observers. But Iran has never been a country that fires impulsively. Each operation is part of a longer strategic chessboard. And as True Promise 3 demonstrated, when Iran does decide to move, it moves decisively.

Why was Iran’s destructive power showcased in this operation and not in the ones before? Would it not have been a better deterrent if Iran had used some of its more advanced missiles in the earlier operations as a message?

That’s an excellent question, and one that speaks to the deeper logic of Iran’s defense doctrine. Why was this level of destructive capability showcased in True Promise 3 and not earlier? Let me clarify something crucial: what the world witnessed in this operation was not the full extent of Iran’s power. It was a calibrated sample. As our late martyred commander General Hajizadeh had said clearly before: "What we have revealed is only a fraction of what we possess." The destructive power of the Islamic Republic is real, layered, and still largely concealed.

Now, regarding the notion that earlier demonstrations of this power might have served as a more effective deterrent, I must respectfully disagree. In today’s global system, conventional force projection alone is no longer sufficient to deter existential threats. The reality is that the only tool capable of deterring total war, the kind of war that seeks regime change or civilizational erasure, is nuclear capability.

For over two decades, Iran has exercised immense strategic restraint. As a signatory to the NPT, Iran has remained committed to non-proliferation. We have opened our facilities to some of the most intrusive inspections in the history of the IAEA. We have declared repeatedly that our nuclear program is peaceful. And we have even codified this commitment through a fatwa by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution forbidding the development of nuclear weapons.

But what has been the return on this restraint?

Instead of being rewarded with security, Iran has faced constant military pressure, economic siege, cyber sabotage, and assassinations of its scientists. "Israel", armed with undeclared nuclear weapons and enjoying unconditional US support, has carried out repeated acts of aggression without consequence. The message this sends is unmistakable: the world respects power, not principle.

In such a world, one where no central authority exists to uphold international law and where rules are selectively enforced, security becomes a self-help enterprise. Classical deterrence theory teaches us that only the credible threat of unacceptable retaliation can prevent war. This logic has protected states like Pakistan and North Korea, both of whom faced severe threats before achieving nuclear capability. This is not about glorifying armament; it is about securing peace through credible deterrence.

Iran’s experience with restraint has failed to yield stability, and the recent war has demonstrated that when push comes to shove, only power speaks. Thus, a strategic recalibration toward nuclear latency or even full weaponization is not an emotional escalation. It is a rational response to a structurally unjust and dangerous international order.

This shift would involve three pillars: 1- Developing robust second-strike capabilities to ensure survivability and deterrence. 2- Establishing a clear declaratory policy that emphasizes the purely defensive posture of any future nuclear force. 3- Embracing controlled opacity, where strategic ambiguity itself becomes a stabilizing force.

We understand the concerns about proliferation, but let us be honest: the region is already nuclear, it’s just selectively nuclear. "Israel" has had such weapons for decades, yet faces no inspections, no sanctions, no global outrage.

Iran’s position has always been rooted in Islamic ethics. But Islamic jurisprudence is also realistic; it adapts to necessity. If the absence of a nuclear deterrent leaves tens of millions of Iranians vulnerable to unrestrained aggression, then the suspension of the fatwa becomes not a moral failure, but a moral necessity, a response rooted in the preservation of life, dignity, and national sovereignty.

There’s been much talk, not very substantiated, yet credible, that in the first hours of their aggression, "Israel" made an attempt at regime change that was thwarted by Iran. Is there any truth to this?

Yes, there is certainly truth to that. As I’ve said earlier, the core objective of the Israeli aggression was not tactical or symbolic; it was strategic and fundamentally existential. This was not just about weakening Iran or “punishing” the Islamic Republic; it was a direct attempt at regime change. And we have good reason to believe that the operation involved a planned coup scenario.

Credible reports, including some from Israeli media itself, indicate that Tel Aviv had pinned its hopes on what can only be described as a delusional plan: the assassination of key political and military leaders in Iran, followed by an internal uprising led by supporters of the exiled Pahlavi monarch. The expectation was that, once the Iranian leadership was decapitated, "millions" would take to the streets to welcome back the Shah’s son as a savior and symbol of a new Western-aligned order. What happened instead? Nothing even remotely close.

As one Israeli outlet sarcastically admitted, "Not even 50 people showed up for him." Instead, what they witnessed was the opposite: millions poured into the streets not in support of regime change, but in defense of their sovereignty, their country, and yes, their government. Far from destabilizing the system, the war catalyzed unprecedented popular solidarity with the Islamic Republic, especially with the leadership of the Revolution.

But even beyond the street response, what truly thwarted this regime change attempt was the overwhelming cooperation between the Iranian people and the country's security apparatus. Citizens helped identify infiltrators, exposed sabotage networks, and enabled swift countermeasures. The internal dimension of the war was met with one of the most powerful mobilizations of civil resistance and counter-intelligence in recent memory.

And let’s speak candidly: you cannot change a regime with airstrikes. Regime change, if it is to succeed militarily, requires boots on the ground. Neither "Israel" nor the United States is in any position to deploy ground forces in Iran. Their entire hope, therefore, rested on an internal uprising, on the idea that opponents of the Islamic Republic would serve as the domestic "infantry" to complete the job. That assumption was catastrophically wrong.

So yes, there was an attempt, poorly planned, grossly miscalculated, and swiftly defeated. It may well be that one of the key factors pushing “Israel” and the US toward a ceasefire was the realization that this internal gamble had not only failed but spectacularly backfired. The streets did not rise for regime change; they rose for national dignity. And that, more than any missile, was Iran’s most powerful weapon.