<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-top-anchor"></div>
<div id="gmail-toolbar" class="gmail-toolbar-container">
</div><div class="gmail-container" lang="en-EN" dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-header gmail-reader-header gmail-reader-show-element">
<a class="gmail-domain gmail-reader-domain" href="https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/jebraily--iran-strikes-rewrote-regional-deterrence-rules---e">english.almayadeen.net</a>
<div class="gmail-domain-border"></div>
<h1 class="gmail-reader-title">Jebraily: Iran strikes rewrote regional deterrence rules - Exclusive</h1>
<div class="gmail-credits gmail-reader-credits">Karim Sharara</div>
<div class="gmail-meta-data">
<div class="gmail-reader-estimated-time" dir="ltr">July 15, 2025 - <font size="1"><a href="https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/jebraily--iran-strikes-rewrote-regional-deterrence-rules---e">https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/jebraily--iran-strikes-rewrote-regional-deterrence-rules---e</a></font></div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="gmail-content">
<div class="gmail-moz-reader-content gmail-reader-show-element"><div id="gmail-readability-page-1" class="gmail-page"><p>In
this exclusive interview, Dr. Yasser Jebraily explains why "Israel\u2019s"
war on Iran was a desperate gamble, how it backfired, and why Iran may
be shifting toward nuclear deterrence.</p><div><ul id="gmail-content-slick-0"><div aria-hidden="false"><li>
<a href="https://alpha-en-media.almayadeen.net/media/image/2025/7/14/321144b4-150f-4615-acda-3f4895a06ebe.png?width=1000" tabindex="0"><img src="https://alpha-en-media.almayadeen.net/media/image/2025/7/14/321144b4-150f-4615-acda-3f4895a06ebe.png?width=1000&preset=w700" alt="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)" class="gmail-moz-reader-block-img"></a>
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. <em>(Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by Batoul Chamas)</em>
</li></div></ul>
<p>As the dust settles on the <a href="https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/-israel--says-launched-major-strike-against-iran-s-nuclear-p">12-day Israeli war on Iran</a>,
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>In this exclusive interview with <strong>Al Mayadeen English</strong>,
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\u2019s 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.</p>
<p>From deterrence theory and the symbolism of Iran\u2019s nuclear program,
to the failed attempt at regime change and the deeper meanings of True
Promise 3, Jebraily takes us through the war\u2019s visible and invisible
fronts, and where he believes the Islamic Republic is heading next.</p>
<p><strong>***********************</strong></p>
<p><strong>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?</strong></p>
<p>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\u2019s" strategic
calculations? What regional and global shifts shaped the context in
which this war unfolded?</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 \u201cIsrael\u201d remained the
most heavily armed power in the region. Politically, the "Abraham
Accords" were launched to normalize relations between \u201cIsrael\u201d and
several Arab states, effectively integrating "Israel" into the regional
political architecture. Economically, the IMEC (India\u2013Middle East\u2013Europe
Corridor) initiative aimed to place "Israel" at the heart of a new
transregional trade route.</p>
<p>However, the <a href="https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/operation-al-aqsa-flood--turning-point--in-history--iran">October 7 operation in 2023</a>
by the Palestinian Resistance disrupted this entire design. It exposed
the fragility of "Israel\u2019s" 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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\u2019s" social cohesion and generated staggering inequality.
According to several indicators, the occupied territories are now among
the most unequal regions in the world.</p>
<p>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\u2019s" 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.</p>
<p><strong>How did the Iranian people take the war? There\u2019s much talk on
social media and Western media of Iranians feeling frustrated with the
Islamic Republic and the nuclear program, and that they\u2019ve "just had
enough". How were things like in reality on the ground? What does the
nuclear program mean for the Iranian people?</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 \u201cIsrael\u201d 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>How do you see Iran\u2019s True Promise 3? Many people have
characterized Iran\u2019s 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\u2019t it?</strong></p>
<p>Let me be very clear: <a href="https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/iranian-official-unravels-details-about-op--true-promise-3">True Promise 3 was a strategic earthquake</a>.
It shattered not only "Israel\u2019s" 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\u201d, 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 <a href="https://english.almayadeen.net/videos/trump---israel-got-hit-really-hard--with-iran-s-ballistic-mi">Trump admitted: "Israel got hit hard."</a></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>Why was Iran\u2019s 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?</strong></p>
<p>That\u2019s an excellent question, and one that speaks to the deeper logic
of Iran\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.</p>
<p>Now, regarding the notion that earlier demonstrations of this power
might have served as a more effective deterrent, I must respectfully
disagree. In today\u2019s 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>But what has been the return on this restraint?</p>
<p>Instead of being rewarded with security, Iran has faced constant military pressure, economic siege, cyber sabotage, <a href="https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/iran-avenges-assassinated-scientists--strikes-key-weizmann-i">and assassinations of its scientists</a>.
"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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Iran\u2019s 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>We understand the concerns about proliferation, but let us be honest:
the region is already nuclear, it\u2019s just selectively nuclear. "Israel"
has had such weapons for decades, yet faces no inspections, no
sanctions, no global outrage.</p>
<p>Iran\u2019s 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.</p>
<p><strong>There\u2019s 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?</strong></p>
<p>Yes, there is certainly truth to that. As I\u2019ve 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 \u201cpunishing\u201d 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.</p>
<p>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\u2019s son as a savior and symbol of a new
Western-aligned order. What happened instead? Nothing even remotely
close.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>And let\u2019s 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.</p>
<p>So yes, there was an attempt, poorly planned, grossly miscalculated,
and swiftly defeated. It may well be that one of the key factors pushing
<a href="https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/iran-launches-strikes-on-israeli-targets--despite-alleged-ce">\u201cIsrael\u201d and the US toward a ceasefire</a> 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\u2019s most powerful weapon.</p></div></div></div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div></div>
</div>
<br></div>