By Dr. Adnan Bozan

Introduction:

The conflict between Israel and Iran stands as one of the most complex and intense political and security struggles in the modern Middle East. It intertwines regional and international dimensions and intersects with conflicting interests that directly impact the stability of the entire region. This is not merely a geopolitical dispute between two states; it is a reflection of deep-rooted ideological, religious, and economic conflicts with multiple agendas that extend beyond the Middle East into the realm of global influence.

For decades, the relationship between Iran and Israel has been marked by intermittent escalations, mutual threats, proxy wars, covert operations, and bloody events—making this conflict a central focus in international politics, especially with the ongoing controversy surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. This nuclear issue has become a focal point of tension, with Israel and the United States viewing a nuclear-capable Iran as an existential threat that must be thwarted before it becomes an irreversible reality. Meanwhile, Tehran insists on its sovereign right to nuclear development for deterrence and national progress, portraying external opposition as hostile aggression.

However, the on-ground reality and political maneuvers often conceal more than they reveal. Between official declarations of precision airstrikes and neutralized strategic targets, and a reality that doesn't necessarily reflect the full destruction of Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities, a crucial question arises: how effective and real are these operations? Addressing this requires an analytical deconstruction that goes beyond media surfaces dominated by political and diplomatic rhetoric, delving instead into a deeper reading of actual interests, hidden agendas, and the complex dynamics governing this conflict.

In light of these circumstances, it becomes essential to examine the Israeli-Iranian conflict through a comprehensive lens that merges political, security, and economic analysis, while considering the regional and global interactions shaping its trajectory and determining its consequences for the future of the Middle East as a whole.

1. Background and Parties to the Conflict:

The Israeli-Iranian conflict is among the most intricate disputes in the Middle East, rooted in over four decades of political and ideological tension that began with the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. That revolution overthrew a pro-Western monarchy and declared Iran an Islamic Republic under the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist), branding Israel a primary enemy—not only due to its hardline political stance against the Jewish state, but also because Iran made support for armed groups opposing Israel, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, a cornerstone of its regional policy.

This dynamic is grounded in ideology: Iran sees itself as a resistance force against what it terms American and Zionist hegemony in the region, while Israel interprets Iran’s actions as a direct existential threat to its national security and regional stability. Here lie the deeper layers of the conflict—not merely a territorial or influence dispute, but a confrontation of values and ideologies fundamentally opposed to one another.

Beyond ideology, the conflict is shaped by complex geopolitical factors. Iran aspires to regional hegemony through alliances with armed factions and political parties in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, exploiting the security vacuums and instability in these states. This expansion has alarmed Israel and its allies, who see in it a multi-dimensional threat.

At the international level, Iran's nuclear program has become a focal point. The global community—especially Israel and the United States—fears that the program may eventually enable Iran to develop nuclear weapons, which would shift the balance of power in the Middle East and potentially spark a dangerous arms race. As a result, Israel, with full U.S. backing, has pursued a strategy of preemptive strikes and cyberattacks (such as the attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility), aiming to weaken and restrict Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities before they reach a point of no return.

On the other hand, Iran insists on continuing its nuclear efforts, claiming they are for peaceful purposes and essential to national development and deterrence. It carefully navigates international pressure, leveraging its complex regional ties and alliances with global powers like Russia and China. Iran also plays influential roles in international organizations, affording it some maneuvering space within global power equations.

The conflict cannot be fully understood without recognizing the role of other regional powers that contribute to the broader political dynamics. Saudi Arabia, for example, views Iran’s regional expansion as a direct threat to its own security and seeks to bolster regional and international alliances to counter Tehran, including its support for U.S.-Israeli efforts to contain Iranian influence. Turkey, meanwhile, attempts to maintain a balancing act between both sides, playing a strategic role in Syria while seeking to exploit regional turmoil to expand its own political and economic influence.

Globally, the impact of this conflict transcends Middle Eastern borders. It contributes to global tensions by affecting energy supply routes, disrupting international trade, and increasing the risk of direct military clashes—all of which make the region a persistent flashpoint that could trigger worldwide crises.

Understanding this multifaceted background is crucial to decoding the repeated escalations and strategic maneuvers in the region. These confrontations are not confined to direct military engagements; they extend into diplomacy, economics, media narratives, and international politics—forming a multidimensional conflict continuously reshaped by evolving power balances and emerging alliances.

2. Field Realities: Airstrikes and Conflicting Claims

In recent days, the military situation has witnessed a clear escalation on the ground, with U.S. and Israeli warplanes carrying out a series of concentrated airstrikes targeting strategic sites in Iran—most notably in Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow. These operations fall within a broader strategy aimed at undermining Iran’s nuclear program, which Tel Aviv and Washington perceive as an existential threat to both regional and global security.

Official sources in the United States and Israel announced that the raids resulted in the destruction of Iran’s nuclear arsenal, reinforcing a media narrative portraying the strikes as a decisive step in confronting the Iranian nuclear threat. However, the facts on the ground raise serious questions about the validity of these claims, especially in the absence of any tangible evidence indicating uranium leakage at the targeted sites. This casts doubt on the effectiveness of the strikes and points to Iran’s capability to protect its nuclear stockpiles, suggesting the presence of an advanced network of fortifications and a tightly managed system that enables the rapid relocation of sensitive materials to secure alternative sites.

Iran’s ability to respond with such flexibility reveals a high level of intelligence and technical coordination, including the fortification of nuclear facilities, concealment of vital capabilities, and the use of advanced technologies in defense, surveillance disruption, and reconnaissance countermeasures. This also hints at the possible existence of secret bases and hidden command centers, located beyond the reach of airstrikes, making it difficult for attackers to inflict lasting strategic damage.

Furthermore, these strikes carry dual military and political messages. On one hand, they demonstrate Israel’s and the United States’ ongoing ability to carry out precision attacks within Iranian territory, aiming to project seriousness and deterrence. On the other hand, they may lack the decisive power to fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear program or fundamentally shift Iranian policy. This contradiction between official rhetoric and operational reality reflects the complex dimensions of the indirect war being fought, where strikes become symbolic messages in a broader game of regional and international power balance.

From another perspective, these operations could be interpreted as part of a well-orchestrated political performance, involving multiple actors working—either overtly or covertly—to reshape the region’s strategic landscape without entering a full-scale war that could have catastrophic consequences. While some material damage may have been inflicted on the Iranian regime, it does not appear to rise to the level of fundamental weakening or political collapse, implying the existence of implicit or even explicit understandings among major powers to maintain a degree of regional stability and avoid uncontrolled escalation.

In conclusion, despite their military and political implications, the airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear sites remain insufficient to determine the fate of the nuclear program or the overall outcome of the conflict. The on-the-ground reality illustrates Iran’s resilience and ability to weather these assaults, while the intertwining of regional and international interests suggests that the unfolding events are merely one chapter in a complex play—one shaped by overlapping political, economic, and security agendas. The central question remains: where is this intricate conflict leading the region and the world?

3. The Political Scenario: A Well-Orchestrated Performance

Upon deconstructing the broader context of the Israeli-Iranian conflict, it becomes clear that what is presented on the surface as a direct military confrontation is, in essence, another act in a meticulously orchestrated political-strategic performance. Multiple actors—regional and international—participate in this drama with varying degrees of coordination or implicit collusion. The reciprocal strikes, nuclear threats, and loud political statements seem more like pre-scripted moves in a predetermined scenario than genuine attempts to topple regimes or fundamentally alter power dynamics.

Most field and political indicators suggest that the true objective is not the elimination of the Iranian regime, but rather its containment and behavioral redirection within new power arrangements that safeguard the interests of major global powers. For instance, the United States appears less interested in regime change and more in managing Iran as a functional adversary: a tool for pressuring and extorting the Gulf states, thereby maintaining their military and security dependence, and a geopolitical buffer against the deep penetration of powers like Russia or China into the Middle East.

What we are witnessing is a disciplined display of power—not to uproot Iran, but to limit and tame it. This explains the precision and selectivity of the strikes, which avoid targeting Iran’s high-level command or vital infrastructure that could trigger systemic collapse. In fact, despite the damage, Tehran often emerges from each confrontation more entrenched, particularly through intensified repression of non-Persian ethnic groups—Kurds, Arabs, and Azeris—and by tightening internal security under the guise of "defending against foreign aggression."

The recent Qatari mediation that helped halt the latest escalation between Tel Aviv and Tehran was no coincidence. It is yet another sign of implicit understandings—or at least temporary alignments—between traditional adversaries. It demonstrates that the key players are not interested in igniting a full-blown regional war that could spiral out of control, but are instead carefully reshuffling the influence cards to preserve strategic interests while keeping the region within a calculated margin of tension.

This approach to "crisis management" has become a hallmark of post-Cold War international relations, where the aim is no longer to resolve conflicts but to perpetuate them—as long as they justify intervention, sustain influence, and generate profits. The Iranian-Israeli conflict fits perfectly into this model, exemplifying what is often called a "contained war" or "managed conflict"—a tension that escalates as needed but never boils over into unmanageable chaos.

Thus, the notion of a "political play" is not mere metaphor—it is a precise description of a reality managed behind the scenes, with roles carefully assigned: Israel presents itself as the West’s shield against the "Iranian threat," Iran postures as a resistance force against "Zionist and imperialist" agendas, and Washington moderates the tempo, calibrating the balance of power to maintain dominance without incurring the costs of direct confrontation.

Yet the hidden costs of this play are grave. It is the people—Iranians, Israelis, Arabs—who pay the price. Citizens live under regimes that exploit the conflict to justify repression, militarize the state, and curtail freedoms in the name of "national security" or "existential resistance." Meanwhile, resources and wealth remain hostage to projects that serve only the interests of political elites, military-industrial complexes, and foreign powers.

A full reading of this political scenario is incomplete without addressing its unspoken goals—chief among them: control over energy sources, securing maritime routes, maintaining a permanent military-technological edge in the region, and preventing the emergence of independent powers or alternative models that could challenge the existing global system of Western dominance.

Therefore, this conflict cannot be assessed merely by the impact of strikes or the volume of rhetoric. It must be understood within a broader strategic landscape where global powers operate through layered agendas that blend military deterrence, political manipulation, and economic exploitation. It is a tightly engineered performance—strategically brilliant, perhaps—but tragically devastating in its human consequences.

4. A Historical Parallel: Echoes of the Iraq Scenario (1990–2003)

When analyzing the Iranian-Israeli conflict through the lens of historical precedent, a striking resemblance emerges with the Iraq scenario that began in 1990 and culminated in the regime’s fall in 2003. Just as Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, defying international will and subsequently faced a U.S.-led military coalition under the banner of “liberating Kuwait,” today’s Iran is pursuing expansionist policies across the region, engaging in proxy battles on multiple fronts, while facing threats and international alliances that mirror the Iraq experience.

In the Iraqi case, the immediate objective was not regime change, but rather containment—weakening Saddam Hussein’s grip through intense airstrikes and prolonged economic sanctions. These measures left the country in a state of chronic exhaustion without directly toppling the regime. On the contrary, after the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam managed to consolidate internal power through brutal suppression of uprisings in the south and north, and by expanding the authority of security apparatuses—allowing him to maintain control for over a decade, despite the suffocating embargo. His removal ultimately came in 2003 through a full-scale military invasion under the pretext of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction—a justification that was later revealed to be based on misleading or fabricated intelligence.

The Iranian scenario today appears to follow a similar trajectory. Like Iraq in the 1990s, Iran is being subjected to “targeted” military strikes, crippling economic pressure, and sustained diplomatic and media isolation. Yet, it has not faced an outright campaign aimed at regime overthrow. In fact, Iran is repeatedly afforded opportunities to reposition itself regionally, and even to expand its influence in theaters such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. This model of “containment without collapse” suggests an unstated intention by major powers to keep the Iranian regime strong enough to regulate regional dynamics, yet weak enough to prevent rebellion or pose a direct threat to Western interests.

Recent political mediations—such as Qatar’s role in de-escalating tensions between Tehran and Tel Aviv—recall the attempts by the UN and Arab League between 1990 and 2003 to broker partial settlements with Iraq, while Washington, both then and now, kept its finger on the trigger, waiting for the opportune moment to strike. In both cases, the targeted regime is left to bleed internally, only to be dealt with when political and military conditions align, ensuring minimal chaos.

Tehran’s current use of the “foreign enemy” narrative to justify domestic repression and strengthen internal security closely parallels Saddam’s rhetoric during the 1990s. He exploited sanctions and embargoes to rally the population around the regime, suppress political dissent, and crush minority groups under the guise of resisting foreign aggression.

This is not merely a surface-level comparison—it reflects a deeper similarity in method and strategy. The U.S. approach to crisis management, particularly in the Middle East, often involves keeping flashpoints active but controlled, avoiding rapid or total resolutions unless internal collapse becomes inevitable and international consensus on an alternative is secured. The Iraqi case is a clear lesson: regimes do not fall by war alone, but through gradual exhaustion, systematic dismantling, and careful post-collapse planning.

From this perspective, Iran today resembles a post-1991, pre-2003 Iraq—caught in a phase of “long-term containment,” awaiting a resolution whose timing remains undecided. The central question becomes: Will the regime fall from within—via a mass uprising or a viable political movement? Or from without—through a limited surgical operation or direct intervention? And will global powers repeat the missteps of the Iraq experience, or have they learned new lessons?

What is certain is that this conflict, like Iraq’s, will not be left to evolve randomly. It is being managed within a complex strategic architecture where war is merely a tool, and outcomes are crafted not on battlefields, but in political decision-making rooms. Fighter jets and missiles are simply instruments executing decisions forged in the power centers of Washington, Tel Aviv, and other Western capitals—once the conditions for internal disintegration are met and the future maps are quietly drawn behind the scenes.

5. Internal Dimensions: Escalation of Repression and the Dismantling of National Movements

Amid the external tensions imposed by confrontation with Israel and mounting international pressure on Tehran, the Iranian leadership is leveraging the region’s volatile climate as a pretext to intensify its domestic security grip and expand political and ethnic repression—particularly against national minorities such as the Kurds, Arabs, Azeris, and Baloch. Rather than using periods of "military truce" or "phased containment" as opportunities for self-reflection or internal de-escalation, the regime exploits these lulls to consolidate its instruments of power and extinguish any voices that may pose long-term threats.

Politically, Tehran seeks to undermine internal nationalist and ethnic movements, viewing them—through the lens of the regime—as "external extensions" used by regional and international adversaries to undermine national unity or penetrate the state’s security fabric. Official Iranian media justify this repression under the banner of "confronting separatist plots," but on the ground, it materializes in the form of mass arrests, show trials, secret and public executions, and continuous raids on border regions and rural villages that serve as social bases for these minorities.

In Iranian Kurdistan, for example, a state of undeclared emergency has persisted for years. The Kurdish regions are governed purely through a security lens, where residents are denied the most basic forms of political participation, the right to education in their mother tongue, or the freedom to express their cultural identity. Peaceful protests—whether by students or labor unions—are met with swift and violent repression, and participants are routinely branded as “traitors” or “separatists.” The same applies to the Ahwazi Arabs, who are treated as second-class citizens, facing systematic economic marginalization and political exclusion—despite living in oil-rich areas mired in poverty and deprivation.

In the Azeri regions, although members of this ethnic group make up one of the country’s largest populations, any discourse on their cultural rights or social demands is met with official indifference or political disdain. Their national belonging is reduced to the extent of their loyalty to the regime, rather than to their identity or aspirations.

This dynamic reveals that the Iranian regime governs with a "center vs. periphery" mentality—exercising tight political and economic control over the capital and major urban hubs, while leaving peripheral and marginalized regions under the dominion of military and intelligence apparatuses, even if this strategy fuels long-term social unrest.

The core objective of these systematic repressive policies is to dismantle any nationalist or social movements that could evolve into serious threats to central authority—especially amid growing popular discontent caused by economic deterioration, rampant unemployment, the absence of social justice, and the deepening sense of historical marginalization. The regime understands that its most dangerous crises lie not outside its borders, but within—where the seeds of upheaval are being sown and left unaddressed, confronted only through violence and suppression.

What further complicates the situation is the regime’s deliberate conflation of internal dissent with external threats. Any domestic protest is portrayed as an extension of foreign conspiracies allegedly led by the United States or Israel—thus enabling the regime to justify its crackdowns under the guise of “national security.” This gives the repressive machinery a legal and even religious cover, but only deepens the divide between the state and society, and exacerbates the regime’s isolation from its own people.

Over time, such intensive repression becomes a double-edged sword: while it provides the regime with tools of control and continuity, it also accumulates political and social tension—pushing oppressed minorities toward more radical alternatives, including secession or armed struggle. This could ultimately plunge Iran into a delayed civil conflict, ready to erupt when the right conditions converge.

Even more alarming is that this escalation is not limited to ethnic minorities. It extends to national and civil protest movements—including students, activists, women, intellectuals, and even some dissenting clerics. With each new wave of repression, public freedoms erode further, and the social fabric unravels—paving the way for a police state governed by intelligence agencies, revolutionary courts, and secret prisons.

From this perspective, the apparent stability inside Iran does not reflect state strength, but rather the severity of suppression. This type of coercive stability cannot endure indefinitely in the face of mounting, repressed anger. Every external crisis is used to tighten the regime’s grip, but never to address the root causes—leaving Iran perpetually perched on the edge of a political and social volcano.

Thus, the internal dimension cannot be separated from regional and international calculations. The future of Iran—both politically and geopolitically—hinges not solely on how it manages relations with its foreign adversaries, but critically on how it governs its own people. The question is no longer: Will the regime continue to suppress its population? Rather, it is: How long can it continue to do so before internal dynamics impose an irreversible transformation?

6. The Interests of Major Powers: Preserving the Iranian Regime as a Strategic Tool in the Game of Balance

Despite hostile rhetoric and mutual threats suggesting that the U.S.-Iran conflict is headed toward full-scale confrontation, a deeper reading of the behavior of major powers—chief among them Washington—reveals a dual-track strategy: to keep the Iranian regime in place not out of affinity, but because it serves as a vital instrument in shaping regional and global power dynamics in the Middle East. This apparent contradiction between hostile discourse and pragmatic policy is nothing new in international relations; rather, it reflects a recurring American strategy of using “rogue” regimes as pressure cards against both its allies and rivals.

Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the United States has never pursued a consistent or decisive policy aimed at toppling the regime. Most measures—ranging from economic sanctions to limited airstrikes—have been designed to apply pressure, not to cause collapse. This approach reflects a strategic vision in which a verbally hostile but politically and economically manageable regime serves multiple purposes:

1. Using Tehran as a “Security Scarecrow”
For Washington, a revolutionary, anti-Western Iranian regime framed as an ongoing threat to Gulf security provides an effective tool for keeping the Gulf states in a perpetual state of dependency. The more tensions escalate with Tehran, the more these states seek U.S. protection, fueling multibillion-dollar arms deals and guaranteeing the continuity of the American military-industrial complex in the region. In this sense, the “Iranian threat” justifies the presence of U.S. bases and links Gulf security directly to American strategic interests.

2. Clipping Iran’s Wings, Not Uprooting It
The U.S. strategy is not about regime change à la Iraq in 2003, but about containment and taming. Through sanctions and targeted strikes, Iran’s regional influence is trimmed without triggering domestic chaos that could lead to systemic collapse. The prospect of disintegration in a major country like Iran—with its vast resources, geopolitical centrality, and complex social structure—poses risks that the U.S. prefers to avoid, especially amid growing Russian-Chinese influence in global affairs.

3. Iran as a Check on Russian and Chinese Influence
Iran occupies a gray area in the global order. It is an undeclared ally of both Russia and China, but remains outside their full strategic umbrellas. This hybrid status allows Washington to monitor and even constrain its rivals’ activities in the region. Russia’s entanglement in Syria and China’s economic engagement with Iran operate under the pressure of Western containment, limiting both powers’ ability to expand influence freely in the Middle East.

4. A Partner in Crisis Management, Not Resolution
The United States and its Western allies are not seeking to resolve Middle Eastern crises, but to manage them in ways that perpetuate the need for their involvement. Iran plays a key role in this strategy by keeping various regional conflicts simmering but contained—from Lebanon and Iraq to Syria and Yemen. Tehran holds the levers of escalation and de-escalation, making it an indispensable actor in any future settlement and a negotiator by necessity, even at the height of confrontation.

5. Supporting Contradictory Regimes Is Policy, Not Inconsistency
The U.S. support for disparate regimes—Saudi Arabia on one end, secular Israel on the other, and Iraqi governments aligned with Iran—does not indicate confusion, but pragmatic realism. U.S. policy is function-based, not ideology-based. In this framework, Iran is no exception. Even under Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, the regime was never dealt a fatal blow. Instead, Iran was used as a pressure point on Europe, a selling point for policies like the “Deal of the Century,” and a pretext for exiting the nuclear accord.

6. Washington Needs a Permanent Enemy
From a domestic political and economic standpoint, the U.S. needs a permanent external enemy to justify its enormous defense spending, fuel its arms industries, stir nationalist sentiment, and shift public attention toward “national security” narratives. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the containment of Saddam Hussein, Iran was the logical successor. Its revolutionary rhetoric, regional proxies, and involvement in controversial global affairs make it an ideal adversary.

In conclusion, the survival of the Iranian regime is not a failure of Western policy—but rather a calculated success of a long-term strategic design. This design is based on exploiting crises rather than solving them, leveraging threats rather than neutralizing them. The Iranian regime remains not solely because of domestic legitimacy or resilience, but because it functions as a useful node in a fragile but effective balance of interests maintained by global powers.

Thus, the real question is no longer: “Will Iran fall?” but rather: “When will the regime outlive its strategic usefulness?” Until that moment arrives, the battle will play out on the surface, while the deal is managed in the depths—where grand strategy is formed not in Tehran or Tel Aviv, but in Washington, and to a lesser extent, in Beijing and Moscow.

7. Failed Predictions: The Complexity of Conflict and the Illusion of Victory

For years, a widely held belief circulated among many political observers and media analysts—especially within certain Western and Arab circles—that escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, or between Iran and the United States, would inevitably lead to the fall of the Iranian regime. This scenario gained traction after every major crisis—whether following the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2018, the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, rounds of escalation in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, or during waves of mass protests inside Iran.

However, reality has proven these expectations wrong—not only because they failed to materialize, but because they were often based more on emotional assumptions than on realistic analyses grounded in a deconstruction of Iran’s political structure, an assessment of local and international power balances, and an understanding of the nature of contemporary conflict in the Middle East.

These predictions, which linked regime change in Iran solely to external pressure or regional escalation, overlooked several critical factors:

1. The Regime’s Capacity to Absorb Crises
The Iranian regime has demonstrated a remarkable ability to absorb political, economic, and security shocks—and at times, to convert them into tools for domestic mobilization. The narrative of “revolutionary victimhood” and the ever-present foreign threat has consistently been used to justify repressive policies, restrict freedoms, and reproduce centralized power.

2. The Absence of a Cohesive Domestic Alternative
Despite the intensity of popular protests and the multiplicity of opposition movements, the regime has successfully dismantled the organizational foundations of any unified political alternative. Opposition forces are either fragmented between exile and domestic spheres, divergent in vision and goals, or incapable of forming a unified front that could convince both domestic and international actors of its readiness to govern a transitional phase.

3. International Reluctance Toward Chaos Scenarios
Major powers—particularly the United States and European countries—do not see a direct interest in toppling the Iranian regime by force, especially given the catastrophic precedents in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Chaos in Iran—a populous country with vast resources and a geopolitically strategic location—could open the door to civil and regional conflicts with far-reaching consequences. It could destabilize regional balances and offer Russia or China new opportunities to expand their influence.

4. The Limits of Israeli Gambits
Despite open hostility between Iran and Israel, the latter has pursued a strategy of tactical strikes aimed at deterrence rather than full-scale regime change. Securing its northern borders, preventing the transfer of advanced weaponry to Hezbollah, and curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions remain Tel Aviv’s top priorities. Regime change in Tehran exceeds Israel’s capabilities—and carries unpredictable outcomes, especially if the successor proves to be more radical or destabilizing.

5. Misjudging the Role of Ideology and Deep Structures
Many analyses have fallen into the trap of reducing the Iranian regime to a mere political entity, overlooking the deeply entrenched ideological-revolutionary infrastructure that underpins it. This includes the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the institutions of Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist), which penetrate all aspects of society—economy, education, media—and form a near-impermeable ruling system. Such a structure cannot simply collapse under external pressure; it would require a broad internal rupture across the political, religious, and security elite.

In conclusion, the repeated failure of predictions about the Iranian regime’s downfall highlights the complexity of the landscape and underscores the futility of analysis rooted in wishful thinking or political emotion. The Iranian-Israeli-American conflict is governed not merely by military power or sanctions, but by intricate balances of intertwined interests and resilient internal structures resistant to rapid collapse.

It is time to rethink the logic of political analysis—moving away from oversimplification and revolutionary fantasies—toward a deeper understanding of Iranian reality, the nature of the regime, and the regional and global dynamics that sustain it.

8. Conclusions and Future Scenarios: Where Is the Conflict Headed?

After a deep reading of on-the-ground developments, an analysis of political scenarios, internal dynamics, and the interests of global powers, it becomes clear that the Iranian–Israeli conflict—backed by international forces—is not a passing dispute. Rather, it is part of a complex regional and global strategic game still in the making, where multiple factors and fragile balances intersect, necessitating long-term, multi-layered interpretations.

A. Key Conclusions

• A State of Permanent Proxy and Controlled War:
The conflict remains in the realm of controlled warfare and indirect confrontation. Neither side pushes toward full-scale war due to the potentially catastrophic consequences, including a regional conflagration, multinational interventions, and widespread infrastructure devastation. As such, the conflict has shifted toward precision strikes, the use of proxy forces, and mutual containment strategies that preserve the strategic balance.

• The Iranian Regime as a Strategic Tool Rather Than a Target for Overthrow:
Global powers—led by the United States—are not intent on completely toppling the Iranian regime, fearing the power vacuum and instability such a collapse might create. Instead, they apply constant pressure to curb its regional and nuclear ambitions while maintaining its existence as a manageable actor.

• Endless and Managed Regional Crises:
A relatively strong Iran ensures a state of "controlled instability" in the region—an environment that benefits global powers by allowing them to manage developments through sophisticated political, military, and economic tools.

• Internal Factors in Iran Are Key to Future Change:
Rising internal repression, deepening economic and social crises, and growing unrest—especially among ethnic minorities and the younger generations—represent ticking time bombs that could shift both internal and regional power dynamics.

• The Regional Balance Is Fragile and Unstable:
With the rising influence of Russia and China, and the growing involvement of regional powers like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the Middle East remains an open arena for multidimensional conflicts, far beyond a simple Iran–Israel binary.

B. Possible Scenarios

• Full-Scale War Scenario:
An uncalculated escalation—triggered by a tactical misstep or hasty political decision—could spark a full-scale war between Iran and Israel, possibly involving direct U.S. and allied intervention. The outcomes of such a war would be devastating for the region, potentially resulting in the collapse of the Iranian regime or radical shifts in the policies of global powers toward the Middle East. Although currently less likely due to the enormous risks, the continued escalation and brinkmanship make it a tangible possibility.

• Continued Controlled Warfare Scenario:
The most probable path is the continuation of controlled tension through military strikes, economic pressure, and diplomatic maneuvers—forming a kind of “regional cold war.” In this framework, Iran continues to build influence via proxies, while the U.S. and Israel chip away at its capabilities without tipping the region into open conflict.

• Sudden Internal Upheaval Scenario:
Economic and social crises could ignite internal unrest in Iran, manifesting as widespread protests or armed uprisings among minorities, placing the regime in existential jeopardy. In such a case, external powers may support domestic factions seeking change—but such a transition would likely be chaotic and fraught with power struggles.

• Regional De-escalation or Compromise Scenario:
Though difficult, changes in regional or global policies could lead to new understandings that reduce tensions—possibly through a renewed nuclear agreement or regional and international mediation that redefines roles and interests. This scenario would require a shift away from reactionary politics and a readiness for long-term strategic dialogue.

C. Influential Factors in the Near Future

• Iran’s Nuclear Program:
The success or failure of nuclear negotiations will significantly impact power balances and alliance strategies.

• Economic Dynamics:
Further economic decline or improved relations with certain states could directly affect the regime’s ability to endure or expand influence.

• Russian–Chinese Support:
The degree of support Iran receives from Moscow and Beijing will largely determine the pressure it can withstand.

• Domestic Protests:
The scale and sustainability of popular movements—especially among minorities, the middle class, and youth—could crack the regime’s hegemony.

• Regional Positions:
The stances of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the Gulf states will play a decisive role in shaping the region’s political and security landscape.

Final Thought

The Iran–Israel conflict, shaped by the agendas of major powers, encapsulates the broader contradictions and challenges of the Middle East. Permanent solutions remain elusive, and grey areas still dominate the political game. While the Iranian regime appears fragile yet resilient, regional and global powers continue reshuffling their cards on this unstable table—one that may collapse at any moment, or endure for decades as part of a prolonged struggle for influence and control.

Conclusion:

The Iranian–Israeli conflict is not a conventional bilateral dispute, nor is it a fleeting crisis to be resolved through negotiations or quieted by limited airstrikes. Rather, it is an intense manifestation of a far broader and more intricate struggle—one deeply rooted in the maps of regional influence, global power balances, and the clash of strategic projects at the heart of the Middle East. Iran and Israel are not merely active states within the region; they are pivotal anchors in a network of balances that includes the United States, Russia, China, the European Union, and the Gulf states, as well as a range of non-state actors operating across multiple conflict zones.

In this context, Iran’s behavior cannot be understood simply as reactive. It is part of a long-term political–ideological–security project that aims to position itself as a permanent regional player—primarily through the management of crises, rather than their resolution. This helps explain Tehran’s entrenchment across various fronts (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Afghanistan), and also justifies the chronic hostility with Israel, which views this project as an existential threat and works to restrain it through regional and international alliances—without slipping into full-scale war.

But beneath all these geopolitical layers lies a single truth: it is the people, not the regimes, who pay the highest price for this ongoing conflict. The Iranian people, burdened by sanctions, economic collapse, and political repression, have little patience left. The same applies to the populations of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen—where regional power plays have created a daily hell of collapse, fear, and displacement.

To truly grasp the future of this conflict, we must break free from shallow analyses and move beyond misleading binaries like “good vs. evil” or “resistance vs. betrayal.” We must reexamine the nature of the Iranian regime—not only in terms of its rhetorical hostility toward Israel, but also in terms of its internal structure, which combines authoritarian control, ideological monopoly, and foreign adventurism at the expense of domestic well-being.

The regime’s endurance thus far does not signify victory; it reflects the complexity of a game managed by global powers—one in which no player is allowed complete collapse, nor unchallenged ascension. But this endurance is not eternal. It is not grounded in genuine internal legitimacy, but in tools of repression and externally driven functional alliances. Over time, these tools erode under the weight of social pressure, recurring protests, the widening rift between state and society, and growing exposure before the international community.

Yes, the Iranian regime will fall—sooner or later.

But this fall may not take the form of a sudden external war or an immediate revolution as some expect. Rather, it is more likely to occur through a slow erosion, a prolonged internal unraveling, and a gradual collapse of political, social, and religious legitimacy. It will be a fall from within—preceded by the generational struggle of the youth, the uprisings of marginalized minorities, the rebellion of peripheral cities, and an expanding rupture within the political and military elite.

This change may not arrive in dramatic fashion, like Baghdad in 2003, but through a series of subtle, hard-to-detect shifts—moving silently but swiftly toward the point of no return. At some moment, the fig leaf will fall from a regime long masquerading as one of “resistance,” while in reality resisting only its own people.

Thus, the real question is no longer if the Iranian regime will fall, but how, when, and by whom?
And more crucially: Will its fall open the door to a democratic system that reflects the aspirations of the Iranian people and all their components—or will it lead to yet another cycle of chaos, orchestrated from the war rooms of global powers?

The answer to that question will determine not only the fate of Iran—but the shape of the Middle East for decades to come.