INTERVIEW-Tehran's Response will be Limited to Escalation with Israel: Dr. Youssef Badr
As the conflict between Iran and Israel entered its tenth day, the US joined to Israel's side, striking three key nuclear facilities in Iran with bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles and risking further escalation.
The announcement came early on Sunday, as the US President, Donald Trump, declared that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities, Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, have been 'completely and totally obliterated.'
In response, Iran accused Washington of launching a dangerous war on Tehran, in complicity with Israel, warning of the 'everlasting consequences' of the US strikes and stressing Iran's right to respond.
The recent escalation has put the world on edge, as Tehran is weighing its response, including the possibility of closing the Hormuz Strait – a move that could send shockwaves across the global economy. As a result, world powers have called for restraint and de-escalation, urging all sides to return to diplomacy.
To gain more insights into the ongoing conflict, Leaders MENA Magazine reached out for Dr. Youssef Badr, a scholar of Middle Eastern affairs. In this interview, Dr. Badr explains the implications of the recent developments on Iran and the wider region. Iran's Nuclear Program
Q: Have the US and Israeli strikes succeeded in eliminating Iran's nuclear program?
Officially, Trump promotes that the Iranian nuclear program is obliterated in order to end the war. In fact, however, the US and Israel have not managed to completely eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. They have just disrupted it.
The Iranian nuclear program cannot be obliterated because – unlike projects previously destroyed in Libya or Iraq – it depends on national expertise, whether in terms of scientists, equipment production, or facility construction.
Therefore, the US policy, which was swayed by the Israeli narrative, does not appear successful because the Iranian project could go underground. In this case, it will be more dangerous than monitoring it by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Tehran's Options
Q: Would Iran escalate or succumb to Trump's threats and choose peaceful settlement? And what options does Tehran have to respond?
Tehran will not accept a forced peace, just as it has rejected a forced war. Hence, it will not be easy for the Iranians to accept any settlement that comes at the expense of their status and regional interests. Iran's history bears this out. The Iranians did not end war with Iraq – even though they were not the ones who initiated it – until they secured their demands.
Indeed, Iran welcomes an end to the war, but not in the form of a capitulation. Any settlement must yield benefits. The Iranians may not oppose giving up the right to uranium enrichment in exchange of something bigger, such as the return of Iran to the global economy in a competitive way.
Tehran's options to respond to the US strikes will remain limited to escalation with the Israelis and disturbing the Americans. The Iranian military strategy does not invite a war with the US and consider it a red line. However, Iran has the ability to endure a long attrition war, although the large geographical distance between Iran and Israel makes it unlikely. Escalation Risks
Q: Trump told the Iranians that there are 'many targets left' that the US could strike if 'peace does not come quickly.' In your opinion, what was Trump referring to?
It is a warning message to pressure Iran to accept a deal that brings the war to an end. He means draining what is left of Iran's economic, military or nuclear capabilities.
Despite Tehran's rejection of ending the war, negotiations have not stopped and Trump sends messages to Iran through mediators. Moreover, the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's visit to Moscow indicates that reaching a solution is possible, particularly that Tehran met with the E3. This also indicates a failure of Trump's policy, which refused multilateral talks in the beginning. Intervention Implications
Q: What potential repercussions does the US' military intervention in Iran have on the Middle East and the world?
Two nuclear powers attacked an undeclared nuclear state, which has a nuclear program that, despite suspicions, has not been proven to be non-peaceful. This undermines the UN Charter and constitutes a failure of the IAEA's mission and goals. Therefore, it makes the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) membership pointless, especially that Trump publicly acknowledged striking nuclear facilities and NASA confirmed the operation.
Furthermore, Israel's involvement in the operation will drive the region's countries to seriously consider the danger of Israel's nuclear capabilities, aside from Iran's issue.
Similarly, the American move emboldens Russia to replicate the strike against Ukrainian nuclear facilities. Russia and China
Q: How do you assess the positions of Russia and China toward the current escalation? Would they intervene in the conflict?
Russia has taken advantage of the West's focus on Iran, intensifying its strikes on Ukraine and occupying more territories to gain more bargaining chips with the Western powers.
Despite limited support, there will be no direct Russian intervention to Iran's side unless Iran agreed to include military partnership in the strategic agreement between the two countries. But this risks broadening the war. Current conflicts involve a side that engages in a direct confrontation and another side that provides undeclared support, as seen with NATO's unofficial support to Ukraine.
Moreover, Moscow does not want a strong Iran as this will deny Russia an avenue to maneuver against Western and European sanctions. At the same time, it does not welcome the fall or fragmentation of Iran. In such case, Russia could reoccupy the northern regions of Iran to protect its interests and influence.
As for China, Iran is not like Pakistan, which borders China and received its support against India. Still, Iran is important for China as a gateway to Europe, the Gulf and the Middle East. So, it does not welcome its collapse.
Meanwhile, Russia and China are both responsible for the dilapidated state that Iran is experiencing. The two countries have not given Tehran its demanded weapons, defense systems and fighter jets, under the pretext of compliance to international sanctions. Thus, Iran has not received sufficient development since it aligned itself with them. Domestic Impacts of Escalation
Q: How is the current conflict impacting Iran domestically? And is the collapse of the regime imminent?
There are opponents, even enemies, to the current regime. But at the same time, there are supporters, and Iran's social and organizational structure is contributing to protecting this regime.
Just as the opposition propaganda claims that the Iranian regime has begun to erode, the current war may have given it a new lease on life. The regime managed to adapt to the war in Iraq for eight years.
Additionally, the 2015 nuclear deal granted Iran an opportunity for change, as a result of its engagement with the West – a development that unsettled Russia and China. However, Trump scrapped the deal and caused a mistrust in the West. This lack of trust in the Western powers will keep pushing Iranians toward alignment with Moscow and Beijing.
Short link :
Post Views: 10
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
3 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Trump ‘still interested' in Iran diplomacy: White House
Donald Trump thinks Iranians should overthrow their government if it refuses to negotiate on its nuclear program, but the US president is 'still interested' in diplomacy, the White House said Monday. 'If the Iranian regime refuses to come to a peaceful diplomatic solution, which the president is still interested and engaging in, by the way, why shouldn't the Iranian people take away the power of this incredibly violent regime that has been suppressing them for decades?' Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Fox News.
Al Arabiya
3 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Will the Iranian government surrender?
As the war between Israel and Iran intensifies, a seismic shift has emerged in the rhetoric of world leaders and the trajectory of the conflict. US President Donald Trump issued a stark and sweeping demand: Iran must surrender unconditionally. The demand, made publicly during a press conference at the White House, draws on growing speculation that the Iranian government may be nearing the end of its capacity to fight a prolonged war. That speculation has only intensified following a major escalation: the United States has now formally joined Israel in direct military action, launching coordinated airstrikes against three of Iran's most sensitive and fortified nuclear sites – Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. The attack marks a significant turning point in the conflict, signaling a unified Western resolve to eliminate Iran's nuclear infrastructure and weaken its military-industrial backbone. Israel, for its part, has gained a clear edge in the ongoing hostilities. Within days of the initial exchange of fire, the Israeli military had not only asserted aerial superiority but also inflicted severe damage on Iran's military infrastructure. Airstrikes have decimated command centers, missile stockpiles, and key nuclear sites that once stood at the heart of Iran's defense doctrine. The joint US-Israeli assault on Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow sent an unmistakable message: The international patience with Iran's nuclear ambitions has run out, and the gloves are off. More shockingly, several of Iran's top military leaders – figures considered irreplaceable by many analysts – have been killed in the campaign. The effectiveness of Israel's offensive, now bolstered by US involvement, has led some observers to wonder: Is this the beginning of the end for the Islamic Republic? And if so, will Iran's leadership actually surrender? In many wars, especially those that reach a point of severe imbalance, the conclusion comes not through negotiated settlements but through one-sided surrenders. This pattern of collapse is often followed by either a peace agreement, a political transition, or a complete restructuring of governance. The logic of war would suggest that Iran, overwhelmed by superior firepower, international isolation, and internal decay, should ultimately throw in the towel. But when it comes to the Islamic Republic, things are not so simple. For many reasons – political, psychological, and existential – Iran's government is unlikely to surrender. In fact, it is more probable that the leadership will choose to fight to the bitter end, even if the battlefield is reduced to shadows, bunkers, and ruins. One of the most significant reasons Iran's ruling elite will resist surrender is fear – fear of what might follow their collapse. Over the past decade, the Islamic Republic has been rocked by some of the largest, most sustained protest movements in its history. Millions of Iranians have poured into the streets demanding justice, economic reform, an end to corruption, and a complete dismantling of the clerical establishment. From the 2019 protests over fuel prices to the nationwide uprising following the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022, Iran's streets became a recurring theater of revolt. In such a climate of public anger and mistrust, the ruling class knows that any surrender could open the floodgates to retribution. If the government collapses, the Iranian people – or the transitional government that follows – may seek to hold top officials accountable. Crimes against humanity, corruption, human rights violations, and political repression could all come under scrutiny in a post-government Iran. The prospect of facing international tribunals or even domestic trials is enough to make surrender unthinkable for those currently in power. They understand that stepping down might not just mean the loss of office, but the loss of their freedom – or even their lives. Adding to this paranoia is the reality that there are few viable exit routes available to Iran's ruling elite. While some might think these are the places Iranian leaders can flee to – countries like Russia, Venezuela, or Cuba – these supposed sanctuaries are far from secure. Russia, embroiled in its own international isolation and economic decline, may not have the capacity or willingness to indefinitely host high-profile fugitives from Iran. Latin American nations, while sympathetic to anti-American governments, have their own political instabilities to contend with. Moreover, even if Iran's leaders do manage to flee, there's always the looming risk of extradition. If a new Iranian government emerges and establishes diplomatic ties with the West, it could easily demand the return of former officials to stand trial. Life in exile, then, would likely be a shaky and paranoid existence – not the dignified retirement that many political elites might envision for themselves. Faced with these bleak prospects, Iran's leadership may instead seek to cling to power by disappearing into the shadows. Rather than formally surrendering, the government could fracture into a loosely connected network of bunkers, loyalist militias, and underground command centers. From these hiding places, they could continue to rule – albeit weakly – over a disintegrating country. In such a scenario, the Iranian state would effectively become a ghost government, battered by war but still refusing to admit defeat. Israel, meanwhile, seems poised to continue its campaign of degrading Iran's military and nuclear capabilities. With air superiority already established, the Israeli Air Force can now operate with relative impunity over Iranian skies. Each passing day brings more missile strikes, more military targets reduced to rubble, and deeper damage to Iran's infrastructure. The addition of US firepower – especially the high-precision targeting of critical nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow – has amplified the scale and intensity of the assault. These coordinated strikes have not only crippled Iran's nuclear advancement but also served to isolate the regime further on the international stage. Iran's leaders are likely betting that this air war will remain limited in scope. They may believe that as long as the conflict does not descend into a ground war, they can survive the onslaught. Their strategy, it seems, is to endure, absorb the damage, and hope that international diplomacy or domestic resilience can offer them a way back from the brink. This is a gamble, of course – but one that similar governments have made before. The leadership may calculate that it is better to be weak but in power than to surrender and risk annihilation. A model they may be looking at is Hezbollah in 2025. Despite Israel's intensive air campaign that has severely damaged Hezbollah's weapons stockpiles, command centers, and missile infrastructure in southern Lebanon, the group has not been eliminated. A weakened but still intact Hezbollah remains embedded within the Lebanese political and social structure, continuing to function as both a militia and a political actor. Iran's leaders may be drawing parallels from this outcome. Even after suffering immense military losses, Hezbollah endures – and that endurance might offer Iran a psychological and strategic template. The thinking may be that if Hezbollah can survive relentless Israeli assaults and retain some form of operational and political presence, then perhaps the Islamic Republic, even in a debilitated state, can also weather the storm and rebuild over time. But the comparison only goes so far. Unlike Hezbollah, Iran is a state – with embassies, a currency, critical infrastructure, and a deeply embedded security apparatus. The fall of Iran's central authority would unleash a level of chaos that Hezbollah never had to contend with. From separatist movements to tribal rivalries to economic collapse, the unraveling of Iran would be immense. This, too, informs the government's thinking. By continuing to fight, even in diminished form, they maintain a grip – however tenuous – on the direction of the country. Surrender, on the other hand, means handing the wheel to forces that may be hostile, chaotic, or revolutionary. In the end, Iran's government may very well continue to fight – not because it believes it can win, but because it might see surrender as worse. The government sees the future in stark terms: fight and possibly survive, or surrender and face oblivion. And given that calculus, the outcome appears inevitable. The Islamic Republic, like several similar governments before it, will most likely choose defiance over defeat, even if it means ruling over rubble. For now, the war grinds on. Missiles fall, airstrikes roar, and civilians brace for whatever comes next. The recent US-Israeli joint strikes on Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow have dealt a devastating blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions, yet the regime remains unbowed. Whether that refusal leads to prolonged devastation or a final reckoning remains to be seen. But one thing is increasingly clear: the Iranian government does not seem to be surrendering anytime soon.
Saudi Gazette
3 hours ago
- Saudi Gazette
US defends Iran strikes at UN Council as Russia and China condemn action
NEW YORK — The United States and Israel on Sunday at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) strongly defended their military action targeting Iran's nuclear sites, saying the regime in Tehran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Their remarks came at the UN emergency meeting called by Iran in the wake of US-led strikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday, prompting reactions from several UN member states. "The time finally came for the United States in the defence of its ally and in the defence of our own citizens and interests, to act decisively", Dorothy Shea, the US representative to the UN Security Council. "The Iranian regime cannot have a nuclear weapon", she stressed. Israel's envoy, in his remarks, praised the US for the targeted strikes on the Iranian facilities in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, warning that a nuclear-armed Iran spelt danger to the world. "Make no mistake, the cost of inaction would have been catastrophic. A nuclear Iran would have been a death sentence, just as much for you as it would have been for us," Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Danny Danon said. The US military struck three sites in Iran early Sunday, entering into Israel's effort to destroy Iran's nuclear program in a gambit to weaken a longtime adversary said to be working towards a nuclear decision to directly involve the US comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel on Iran that have moved to systematically eradicate the country's air defences and offensive missile capabilities, while damaging its nuclear enrichment vowed retaliation for the US strikes on its nuclear facilities."The timing, nature and scale of Iran's proportionate response will be decided by its armed forces", Amir Saeid Iravani, the permanent representative of Iran to the United Nations, told the UNSC, accusing Israel and the US of destroying key allies, Russia and China, strongly condemned the US military action. They proposed that the 15-member body adopt a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Middle members are expected to respond by Monday night. However, a resolution must have at least nine votes and not be vetoed by the US, the UK, France, Russia or China to the session, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for a peaceful solution and diplomacy, saying, 'We cannot – and must not – give up on peace.'He urged immediate and decisive action to halt the fighting and return to 'serious, sustained negotiations' on Iran's nuclear program. He called for talks to find a verifiable solution with full access by UN nuclear inspectors and a restoration of urging a return to diplomacy and a peaceful solution, Guterres stressed on Sunday that one path leads to wider war, while the other leads to de-escalation and dialogue. 'We know which path is right,' he said. — Euronews
