by Ali A. Ghareh Daghi
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution toppled the US-backed Pahlavi regime, the US and Israel have viewed Iran as a major so-called threat. Despite Iran’s post-9/11 cooperation in Afghanistan and Iraq, then President George W. Bush labelled Tehran part of the ‘axis of evil’ in 2002, dashing hopes for improved relations.
Despite Iran’s cooperation, the US not only dismissed it but escalated unilateral sanctions aimed at regime change. Trump’s 2025 ‘maximum pressure’ campaign marked the harshest yet, targeting Iran’s nuclear programme, regional role, and military. These sanctions crippled both macro- and microeconomic sectors: oil exports plummeted and revenues shrank; the currency devalued amid financial isolation; inflation soared; and trade restricted. On the ground, employment declined—especially in trade-related sectors—and real wages fell as inflation eroded purchasing power.
Sanctions have also had devastating social effects. Despite US claims of exemptions for food and humanitarian goods, sanctions have relentlessly disrupted Iran’s healthcare system, leading to critical shortages of essential medicines.
Economic decline, Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the 2015 JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) nuclear deal, and domestic mismanagement fuelled public discontent within Iran. This turbulence, intensified by the 2021 Woman, Life, Freedom movement, led to deep socio-political polarisation and widespread abstention, with about 60% of voters boycotting the 2024 presidential election. This growing divide reignited US and Israeli discussions of regime change – an aim unmet despite years of devastating sanctions.
The prospect of regime change gained traction amid major geopolitical setbacks for Iran in 2024, including Israeli strikes on Hamas and Hezbollah, and the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria. Such setbacks led Israel to launch a military attack on Iran – code-named ‘Operation Rising Lion’ – on June 13, 2025, while the US and Iran were pursuing diplomatic negotiations to revive the 2015 nuclear deal. However, The Wall Street Journal reported that the negotiations may have served as a cover for Israel’s assault.
The Israeli attack started with strikes on Iranian radar systems, senior officials, scientists, and civilian infrastructure – including state TV and power plants – followed by US airstrikes on nuclear sites. According to Iranian judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir, the attacks killed around 935 people, including 38 children and 132 women. Iran retaliated with over 1,000 drones and 550 ballistic missiles, including precision-guided and hypersonic types, killing 28 Israelis. Israeli defences were overwhelmed, key targets were hit and strikes on sites like the Haifa power plant brought the economy to a near standstill.
From a military standpoint, the Israeli attacks were considered significant tactical achievements. However, they fell short of achieving the strategic objective that both Israeli and US leaders had long pursued: regime change.
Israel’s deadly assault on Gaza, launched in 2023, has killed around 58,000 Palestinians and was widely condemned as an act of genocide, significantly damaging Israel’s international standing. In this context, Israeli officials continued to advocate for regime change in Iran, claiming it would promote ‘democracy’ in the region. Yet the credibility of such claims was severely undermined by Israel’s own actions in Gaza. Rather than inciting dissent within Iran, the war drew attention to Israeli aggression, diminishing the impact of both internal and external calls for an uprising.
How Israeli Strikes Rekindled Iranian National Unity
The recent Israeli strikes have paradoxically reignited national unity in Iran, despite the deep social and political divisions that exist. This rally-around-the-flag’ effect has been fuelled by a shared sense of injustice, amplified by widely circulated images of civilian victims – such as a taekwondo boy, a ballerina, a young skater, a designer, and a poet.
This unity is clear on social media, especially Instagram, with around 47 million Iranian users, where people from diverse backgrounds – ranging from conservatives to women without hijab – have condemned the Israeli assault.
This almost unanimous condemnation, however, reflects national solidarity against aggression rather than just a full support for the Islamic Republic. As one 29-year-old university student in Tehran, who supports the Woman, Life, Freedom movement told me, ‘I’ve many criticisms of the Islamic Republic, but seeing those children killed compelled me to speak out – for the sake of Iran.’
The Future of the Israel-Iran Conflict
Two potential scenarios appear to be unfolding: one involves a military escalation between Israel and Iran; the other, potentially triggered by the first, is Iran progressing toward the development of a nuclear bomb.
Though Tehran and Tel Aviv signed a ceasefire, it remains delicate – like ashes smouldering under flames. Israeli Minister Israel Katz affirmed that Tel Aviv will still work to stop Iran from reviving its missile and nuclear programmes. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council responded that ‘its forces stay alert, [with] fingers on the trigger.’ This truce is not peace but a tense pause, with renewed conflict seeming unavoidable; only the timing and manner remain unclear.
This sense of uncertainty is also echoed by Iranians. For example, a close family member in Tehran told me over the phone recently that, ‘People are expecting something… I’m not sure what exactly, but there’s a feeling that Israel will strike again,’ citing the fact that people were continuing to keep their ‘car fuel tanks full these days’ in case they have ‘to flee Tehran if war starts again.’
The second scenario involves Iran potentially pursuing a nuclear weapon. After the US airstrike, Trump claimed Iran’s main nuclear facilities were ‘completely obliterated’. Yet, the key question is whether Iran’s nuclear programme has been demolished or merely moved underground to smaller, harder-to-detect sites.
At the centre of the uncertainty is Iran’s 408kg stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity – close to the 90% needed for nuclear weapons. Despite bombings, senior adviser Ali Shamkhani warned: ‘Even if nuclear sites are destroyed, the game isn’t over.’
Israel’s and the US’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites, in violation of international laws, have intensified the crisis. In a rare shift, grassroots voices from within Iran – especially popular Persian analysts on social media with large followings – have begun openly calling on the state to develop nuclear weapons. Echoing this sentiment, a state TV presenter unusually urged Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to authorise the production of a nuclear bomb as a means of deterrence.
In conclusion, while sanctions have deeply fractured Iran, the war has unexpectedly fostered national unity and a rally-around-the-flag effect. Instead of pushing regime change, it has strengthened calls for nuclear weapons, leaving Israel and the US further from their objectives, particularly regime change.
[To read more on this and everything Middle East, the LSE Middle East Centre Library is now open for browsing and borrowing for LSE students and staff. For more information, please visit the MEC Library page.]
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by PostX News and is published from a syndicated feed.)
