Israel tried to break Iran – but it might have already helped unify it Israel’s conflict Iran

Israel’s continuous military aggression against Iran has become one of the most cross -border strikes in the history of the modern region. More than just a targeted operation against missile silos or nuclear facilities, it included prominent assassinations and advanced electronic attacks. Among the most important developments so far, the assassination of many major Iranian leaders, including Major General Muhammad Baghri, Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) Hussein Salami and head of the Space Force, Amir Ali Hajidi. The targeted killings are the most severe blow to Iran’s military leadership since the 1980-1988 war with Iraq. However, under the surface, the attack is not just a military maneuver – it is an expression of political doctrine contracts in making.

While Israeli officials framing the operation publicly as a preventive action to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, its deeper strategic logic appears to be increasingly clear: the collapse of the Islamic Republic. For years, the Israelis and some American strategies have argued – sometimes with tacings, sometimes, that the only solid solution to Iranian nuclear ambitions is to change the system. The current campaign is in line with this long goal, not only through military means, but also through psychological, political and social pressure inside Iran.

Recent developments indicate that the process was designed to stimulate the early stages of the internal uprising. Playbook book is familiar to the changing efforts of the previous regime: the assassinations of senior military officials, psychological warfare, and the symbolic targets of misinformation and targeting of state institutions. In Tehran, it was reported that Israeli electronic attacks and accurate strikes have struck buildings and government ministries, and even temporarily disrupting national television broadcasting – a major pillar of Islamic communications infrastructure.

The Israeli political discourse echoed this trend. In closed surroundings and the selected media interviews, officials acknowledged that the underground nuclear facilities in which Iran – which was reported was buried more than 500 meters (1640 feet) under the Zagros and Alborz Mountains – could not be destroyed without the full participation of the United States. Specifically, the process will require the use of GBU -57 “penetration of huge munitions”, which can only be delivered by an American strategic bombs B -2 or B -52. In the absence of these capabilities, it seems that Israeli leaders have concluded that the halt of Iran’s nuclear program is impossible without a change in the government.

This context gives a new meaning to the simultaneous military and political efforts to Israel. In the wake of the attacks, the Israeli messages aimed at the Iranian public intensified, and IRGC imagined not as national defenders but as a lady of persecution of the Iranian people. Messages sought to separate the Islamic Republic from the Iranian nation with slogans such as: “This is not the Iran war. This is the war of the regime.” These novels, the eldest son of the last Shah of Iran, and the former football player Ali Karimi – including Reda Bahlafi, the eldest son of Iran, and former football player Ali Karimi – were echoed, expressing his support for strikes and calling for regime change.

However, the strategy may have produced the opposite effect. Instead of igniting the collective rebellion or breaking national unity, the attacks seem to have strengthened public feelings across political lines. Many Iranians, including the regime critics for a long time, have expressed their anger at what they consider a foreign attack on national sovereignty. The collective memory of external intervention – which extends from the 1953 coup to the Iran war – Iraq – has revitalized a very guaranteed defense.

Even among activists of the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement – which sparked protests across the country after the death of Mahasa Amina in 2022 – there was a clear hesitation in compliance with foreign military intervention. With pictures of the bombed buildings and the Iranian soldiers, the mood of sympathy and solidarity reserved the demand for system change. For many, the conversation turned from political reform to national defense.

It is worth noting that many public figures and former opponents of the Islamic Republic expressed their support for Iran and condemned the Israeli attacks. “I prefer to die instead of being a traitor” and refused to cooperate with any foreign attack. “I accept the hands of all defenders of the homeland,” Mohsen Borehani, a former judge and a political prisoner, wrote, referring to IRGC and other armed forces.

What started as a strike calculated on the military targets may achieve the opposite of the intended result. Instead of weakening the regime’s comment on power, Israel’s actions risk its strengthening – by mobilizing national unity and silencing the opposition. A revolution of engineering from abroad may not only fail – as it may lead to counterproductive results.

If the ultimate goal of Israel is to stimulate the collapse of the regime, it may have reduced the historical flexibility of the Iranian political system and the unified power of the national shock. With the fall of bombs and the death of the generals, Iran’s social fabric does not seem to be. Instead, sewing himself may be together.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the editorial island.