[News] Iran strikes rewrote regional deterrence rules

[Anti-Imperialist News]

english.almayadeen.net
<https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/jebraily--iran-strikes-rewrote-regional-deterrence-rules---e>
Jebraily: Iran strikes rewrote regional deterrence rules - Exclusive
Karim Sharara
July 15, 2025 -
https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/jebraily--iran-strikes-rewrote-regional-deterrence-rules---e
------------------------------

In this exclusive interview, Dr. Yasser Jebraily explains why "Israel’s"
war on Iran was a desperate gamble, how it backfired, and why Iran may be
shifting toward nuclear deterrence.

   - [image: 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. (Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by Batoul Chamas)]
   <https://alpha-en-media.almayadeen.net/media/image/2025/7/14/321144b4-150f-4615-acda-3f4895a06ebe.png?width=1000>
   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. *(Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by Batoul Chamas)*

As the dust settles on the 12-day Israeli war on Iran
<https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/-israel--says-launched-major-strike-against-iran-s-nuclear-p>,
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
<https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/operation-al-aqsa-flood--turning-point--in-history--iran>
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.

*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
<https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/iranian-official-unravels-details-about-op--true-promise-3>.
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."
<https://english.almayadeen.net/videos/trump---israel-got-hit-really-hard--with-iran-s-ballistic-mi>

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
<https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/iran-avenges-assassinated-scientists--strikes-key-weizmann-i>.
"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
<https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/iran-launches-strikes-on-israeli-targets--despite-alleged-ce>
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20250715/6e7ad4b6/attachment-0001.htm>