Israel tried to break Iran – but it may have actually helped unite it
Israel's ongoing military assault on Iran has already become one of the most consequential cross-border strikes in the region's recent history. Far more than a targeted operation against missile silos or nuclear facilities, it has included high-profile assassinations and sophisticated cyberattacks. Among the most significant developments so far has been the assassination of several senior Iranian commanders, including Major General Mohammad Bagheri, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Hossein Salami and the head of its Aerospace Force, Amir Ali Hajizadeh. These targeted killings represent the most severe blow to Iran's military leadership since the 1980-1988 war with Iraq. Yet, beneath the surface, the assault is not merely a military manoeuvre – it is the expression of a political doctrine decades in the making.
While Israeli officials publicly framed the operation as a preemptive act to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, its deeper strategic logic appears increasingly clear: the destabilisation – and eventual collapse – of the Islamic Republic. For years, Israeli and some American strategists have argued – sometimes discreetly, sometimes overtly – that the only durable solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions is regime change. The current campaign aligns with this longstanding objective, not only through military means but also via psychological, political and social pressure inside Iran.
Recent developments suggest the operation was designed to provoke the early stages of an internal uprising. The playbook is familiar to observers of past regime‑change efforts: assassinations of top military officials, psychological warfare, disinformation campaigns and the symbolic targeting of state institutions. In Tehran, Israeli‑backed cyberattacks and precision strikes have reportedly hit government buildings and ministries, even temporarily disrupting national television broadcasts – a key pillar of the Islamic Republic's communications infrastructure.
Israeli political rhetoric has echoed this direction. In closed briefings and selected media interviews, officials have acknowledged that Iran's deeply fortified underground nuclear facilities – some reportedly buried more than 500 metres (1,640ft) beneath the Zagros and Alborz mountains – cannot be destroyed without full United States participation. Specifically, the operation would require the use of GBU‑57 'Massive Ordnance Penetrator' bombs, deliverable only by American B‑2 or B‑52 strategic bombers. In the absence of such capabilities, Israeli leaders appear to have concluded that halting Iran's nuclear programme is impossible without a change in government.
This context lends new meaning to Israel's concurrent military and political efforts. In the aftermath of the attacks, Israeli messaging aimed at the Iranian public intensified, portraying the IRGC not as national defenders but as the chief oppressors of the Iranian people. The messaging sought to separate the Islamic Republic from the Iranian nation with slogans such as: 'This is not Iran's war. This is the regime's war.' Iranian opposition figures abroad – including Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of the last shah of Iran, and former footballer Ali Karimi – echoed these narratives, expressing support for the strikes and calling for regime change.
However, the strategy may have produced the opposite effect. Rather than igniting mass revolt or fracturing national unity, the attacks appear to have consolidated public sentiment across political lines. Many Iranians, including longtime critics of the regime, have expressed anger over what they perceive as a foreign assault on national sovereignty. The collective memory of external intervention – stretching from the CIA‑backed 1953 coup to the Iran‑Iraq War – has reactivated a deeply embedded defensive reflex.
Even among activists from the 'Woman, Life, Freedom' movement – which sparked nationwide protests after the 2022 death of Mahsa Amini in police custody – there has been visible reluctance to align with foreign military intervention. As images of bombed‑out buildings and fallen Iranian soldiers circulated, a mood of empathy and solidarity momentarily replaced the demand for regime change. For many, the conversation has shifted from political reform to national defence.
Notably, several public figures and former opponents of the Islamic Republic voiced support for Iran and denounced the Israeli attacks. Football legend Ali Daei declared, 'I prefer to die rather than be a traitor,' rejecting cooperation with any foreign assault. Mohsen Borhani, a former judge and political prisoner, wrote, 'I kiss the hands of all defenders of the homeland,' referring to the IRGC and other armed forces.
What began as a calculated strike on military targets may be achieving the opposite of its intended outcome. Rather than weakening the regime's hold on power, Israel's actions risk reinforcing it – by rallying national unity and silencing dissent. The attempt to engineer revolution from outside may not only fail – it may backfire.
If Israel's ultimate aim was to catalyse a regime collapse, it may have underestimated the historical resilience of Iran's political system and the unifying power of national trauma. As bombs fall and generals die, Iran's social fabric does not appear to be fraying. Instead, it may be stitching itself back together.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released from detention
Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released from detention NewsFeed Palestinian activist and former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil was released after three months in immigration detention, following a judge's ruling to free him amid growing backlash over Trump's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus protests. Video Duration 01 minutes 42 seconds 01:42 Video Duration 00 minutes 42 seconds 00:42 Video Duration 01 minutes 22 seconds 01:22 Video Duration 00 minutes 33 seconds 00:33 Video Duration 01 minutes 32 seconds 01:32 Video Duration 00 minutes 22 seconds 00:22 Video Duration 00 minutes 31 seconds 00:31
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Netanyahu's legacy will not be security – it will be isolation
Since its founding in 1948, Israel's prime ministers have sought to leave legacies that would outlast them — some through war, others through diplomacy, and a few through historic blunders. David Ben-Gurion secured the state's independence and built its foundational institutions. Golda Meir presided over a war that cost her office. Menachem Begin signed peace with Egypt while expanding illegal settlements. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated for trying to make peace with the Palestinians. Each leader, in some way, left their mark. But none has ruled as long – or as divisively – as Benjamin Netanyahu. And now, more than ever, the question is not just what kind of legacy he wants to leave, but what legacy he is actually creating. In 2016, I argued that the Arab world had effectively crowned Netanyahu 'King of the Middle East' — a title that reflected his success in positioning Israel as a regional power without making any concessions to the Palestinians. Today, I believe he sees an opportunity not only to consolidate that title, but to reshape Israel's regional position permanently — through force, impunity, and a strategy rooted in securitised dominance. Since his first term, Netanyahu has insisted that Israel's security must override all other considerations. In his worldview, a Palestinian state is not merely incompatible with Israel's security; it is an existential threat. Even were such a state to be created, Netanyahu has made clear that Israel must retain what he calls 'security sovereignty' over all of historic Palestine. This has never been mere rhetoric. It has shaped his every major decision, none more so than the current war on Gaza. The assault has levelled entire neighbourhoods, killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, displaced most of its two million people, and created an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. Israel stands accused by human rights groups and United Nations agencies of committing war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. It is facing genocide charges, supported by multiple countries, at the International Court of Justice. The International Criminal Court has also issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the use of starvation as a weapon of war. Yet Netanyahu presses on, arguing that Gaza must never again pose a threat to Israel, and that the destruction is necessary to secure the country's future. This logic does not stop at Gaza. He has used similar arguments to justify Israel's attacks on Lebanon, including targeted strikes on Hezbollah figures and the attempted assassination of the group's leader, Hassan Nasrallah. Using the same rationale, Israel has also launched strikes in Yemen and made clear that it will act in Iraq whenever and wherever it deems necessary. The security argument has likewise been used to justify the continued occupation of Syrian territory and is currently invoked to legitimise ongoing attacks on Iran, ostensibly to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons and to degrade its missile and drone capabilities. In every case, the same narrative is repeated: Israel cannot be safe unless its enemies are broken, its deterrence unchallenged, and its dominance undisputed. All dissent, disagreement, or resistance — whether military, political, or even symbolic — is cast as a threat to be eliminated. Even Netanyahu's diplomatic efforts follow this logic. The Abraham Accords, signed with the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco during his premiership, were hailed as peace deals but functioned primarily as instruments of regional alignment that marginalised the Palestinians. For Netanyahu, normalisation is not a path to peace — it is a way to cement Israel's position while avoiding a just resolution to the occupation. What, then, is the legacy Netanyahu seeks? He wants to be remembered as the prime minister who crushed all resistance to occupation, permanently ended the idea of a Palestinian state, and enshrined Israel's dominance in the Middle East through sheer force. In his vision, Israel controls the land, dictates the rules, and answers to no one. But history may remember him differently. What Netanyahu calls security, much of the world increasingly sees as systemic violence. The global response to the war on Gaza — millions marching in protest, international legal action, growing boycotts, and diplomatic downgrades — suggests that under his leadership, Israel is not gaining legitimacy but losing it. Even among its allies, Israel faces growing isolation. While the United States continues to provide diplomatic cover, terms like 'apartheid', 'ethnic cleansing', and 'settler colonialism' are no longer confined to fringe activism. They are entering mainstream political discourse and shaping public consciousness, particularly among younger generations. Many commentators argue that Netanyahu is clinging to power merely to avoid prosecution for corruption or accountability for the failures of the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. But I believe this analysis misses a deeper truth: that he sees this moment — this war, this absence of accountability — as a historic window of opportunity. In his mind, this is legacy work. The tragedy is that in pursuing this legacy, he may achieve the opposite of what he intends. Not a stronger Israel, but a more isolated one. Not a secure homeland, but a state increasingly seen as a violator of international norms. Not a legacy of strength, but one of moral and political collapse. Netanyahu will be remembered. Today, as Gaza burns and Iran faces strike after strike, there is no longer any doubt about that. The only question is whether his legacy will be one of national security, or one that leaves Israel more alone, more condemned, and more precarious than ever before. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
9 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Layoff notices delivered to hundreds of Voice of America employees
Layoff notices have been sent to 639 employees of Voice of America (VOA) and the United States agency that oversees it, effectively shutting down the outlet that has provided news to countries around the world since World War II. The notices sent on Friday included employees at VOA's Persian-language service who were suddenly called off administrative leave last week to broadcast reports to Iran following Israel's attack. Three journalists working for the Persian service on Friday, who left their office for a cigarette break, had their badges confiscated and weren't allowed back in, according to one fired employee. In total, some 1,400 people at VOA and the US Agency for Global Media, or 85 percent of its workforce, have lost their jobs since March, said Kari Lake, Trump's senior adviser to the agency. She said it was part of a 'long overdue effort to dismantle a bloated, unaccountable bureaucracy'. 'For decades, American taxpayers have been forced to bankroll an agency that's been riddled with dysfunction, bias and waste,' Lake said in a news release. 'That ends now.' VOA began by broadcasting stories about US democracy to residents of Nazi Germany, and grew to deliver news around the world in dozens of languages, often in countries without a tradition of free press. But President Donald Trump has fought against the news media on several fronts, with the complaint that much of what they produce is biased against conservatives. That includes a proposal to shut off federal funding to PBS and NPR, which is currently before Congress. 'Death' of independent journalism Most VOA employees have been on administrative leave since March 15, their broadcasts and social media posts mostly silenced. Three VOA employees who are fighting the administration's dismantling of VOA in court were among those receiving layoff notices on Friday. 'It spells the death of 83 years of independent journalism that upholds US ideals of democracy and freedom around the world,' plaintiffs Jessica Jerreat, Kate Neeper and Patsy Widakuswara said in a statement. The Persian-language employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing legal case, was in the office Friday when colleagues were barred from re-entry. The person was afraid to leave for the same reason – even though authorities said their work had been halted – until receiving a layoff notice. Steve Herman, VOA's chief national correspondent who was in the process of retiring to take a job at the University of Mississippi, called the layoffs an 'historic act of self-sabotage with the US government completing the silencing of its most effective soft-power weapon'. It's not clear what, if anything, will replace VOA's programming worldwide. The Trump-supporting One American News Network has offered to allow its signal to be used. Although plaintiffs in the lawsuit called on Congress to continue supporting VOA, Herman said that he is not optimistic that it will survive, even if a Democratic president and Congress take over. For one thing, every day it is off the air is another day for viewers and readers to get into another habit for obtaining news. 'I believe that the destruction is permanent,' Herman said, 'because we see no indication in the next fiscal year that Congress will rally to fund VOA.' By the time another administration takes power that is more sympathetic to the outlet, 'I fear that VOA will have become forgotten,' he said.
