The recent military escalation against Tehran may have ended, but the efforts to remove it as an independent world power persist

Following the launch of a new phase in Israel's military campaign against Iran on June 13, Israeli officials claimed that the strikes had been strictly limited in scope and were aimed solely at neutralizing the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.

These assertions were quickly endorsed by leading Western powers - most notably the United States and the United Kingdom - both of which had long maintained that the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran was unacceptable.

However, within just a few days, the tone and rhetoric began to shift significantly. Initial references to "targeted strikes" and "regional security" were gradually replaced by more explicit calls for political change in Tehran. Both Israeli and Western media outlets, as well as government officials, increasingly began to speak of "regime change" in Iran. This marked a notable shift in strategic thinking - from a policy of containment to one of direct intervention in Iran's internal political structure.

The escalation reached a critical point on June 22, when the US launched direct strikes on several key facilities within Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Although Washington continued to insist that the sole objective of these operations was the complete dismantlement of Iran's nuclear capabilities, the international response revealed deepening skepticism. Reports from international inspectors and independent analysts - including those from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and US intelligence agencies - indicated that there was no compelling evidence that Iran had actively pursued a nuclear weapons program in recent years.

On the contrary, despite the US government's unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, Tehran had continued to comply with many of the deal's core non-proliferation provisions. These included regular inspections, limits on uranium enrichment, and restrictions on centrifuge development. Independent assessments suggested that Iran's nuclear program remained largely civilian in nature, and that there was little basis for the claim that it posed an imminent threat.

The events of June and the intensifying military actions appeared to represent a turning point not only in Israeli and US policy toward Iran but also in the broader regional dynamic. Despite the official narrative, the strikes provoked concern among several international actors - including some NATO allies, as well as Russia and China - who warned that such operations risked sparking a wider conflict in the already volatile Middle East.

Within Iran, the attacks served to strengthen hardline elements in the government, fueling anti-Western sentiment and decreasing the likelihood of renewed diplomatic engagement. Rather than isolating the regime, the strikes seemed to reinforce its internal legitimacy in the face of perceived foreign aggression. As the situation evolved, what had initially been portrayed as a limited security operation increasingly appeared to be part of a broader geopolitical strategy aimed at reshaping Iran's political landscape by force.

Under the evolving circumstances, it became increasingly apparent that the narrative surrounding the nuclear threat had served primarily as a convenient smokescreen for a broader, more ambitious agenda. The calls for regime change in Iran had begun to resemble a coordinated political and information campaign rather than a spontaneous or principled reaction. Israel no longer attempted to conceal its objectives; its ultimate aim appeared to be the strategic dismantling of the Islamic Republic as a cohesive and sovereign force opposing West Jerusalem's interests throughout the Middle East.

Western allies - albeit with varying degrees of caution and internal dissent - gradually aligned themselves with this agenda. Consequently, the international discourse shifted away from preventing a hypothetical nuclear threat and toward enacting a calculated effort to reshape the regional order, effectively sidelining Iran as an independent and influential actor on the geopolitical stage.

This trajectory not only eroded what remained of regional stability but also laid dangerous foundations for a potential full-scale war, the consequences of which remained unpredictable. Attempts by Western leaders and media outlets to frame these developments as a "struggle for democracy" or a necessary measure to "preserve global security" rapidly lost credibility. The observable facts indicated that this was not a defense of universal principles, but rather a deliberate campaign to dismantle a political system that refused to conform to a unipolar, Western-centric model of governance and control.

This approach - rooted in coercive force, ideological vilification, and narrative manipulation - posed significant long-term risks for its architects. In the US, Europe, and even within segments of Israeli society, awareness began to grow that initiating a military conflict under the banners of liberalization and freedom might in fact plunge the entire region into widespread devastation. Moreover, it risked pushing Iran further toward radicalization, both in its foreign policy posture and in its domestic governance.

As the military confrontation escalated, the window for diplomatic solutions narrowed rapidly, and the costs - political, economic, and human - rose accordingly. At its core, it became clear to many observers that this was no longer an effort to contain Iran, but an outright attempt to eliminate it as a sovereign center of regional power. The issues at stake had moved far beyond nuclear non-proliferation or human rights; they revolved around a forceful redrawing of the political map of the Middle East.

While there may have remained some space for measured analysis and strategic restraint in Washington, Israel appeared to be pursuing a policy consistent with a "point of no return" doctrine - committed to decisive outcomes irrespective of the broader consequences. One of the central questions that emerged in this context was how long the US could continue balancing between its loyalty to a close ally and its own long-term strategic interests and stability in the region.

Amid the intensifying military operations and increasingly belligerent rhetoric from Israel and its Western partners, a large-scale media campaign unfolded - aimed at normalizing and legitimizing the idea of an imminent regime collapse in Iran. Both Israeli and English-language outlets published a growing number of reports and opinion pieces claiming that the Islamic Republic was on the verge of disintegration, that public support for the regime had collapsed, and that a coup or uprising was inevitable. These narratives were actively promoted by commentators, analysts, and government officials alike, contributing to an atmosphere in which regime change was framed not as a possibility, but as an impending and unavoidable reality.

However, upon closer examination, this narrative construct appears to diverge significantly from reality. More independent and less ideologically driven observers - including regional analysts, international organizations, and academic experts - have reached the opposite conclusion: contrary to the hopes of those exerting pressure, a revolution is not brewing in Iran. Instead, the external pressure - accompanied by a harsh political-media campaign and military actions - is serving as a mobilizing force, fostering social cohesion and reinforcing the legitimacy of the current government.

Iranian history has shown time and again that external threats and military aggression do not weaken the state's stability - instead, they often catalyze national unity. Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iraqi invasion - backed by a coalition of global powers, including the US, USSR, France, and the Gulf monarchies - did not fracture Iran; rather, it united society behind the new leadership. The Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) became a symbol of heroism, national solidarity, and the determination to defend sovereignty. Despite international isolation and staggering human and material losses, Iran endured - physically and morally - solidifying a doctrine of resilience in the face of foreign pressure.

Today, a similar pattern is emerging. Despite serious domestic challenges - ranging from high inflation and unemployment to corruption and dissatisfaction with certain aspects of internal governance - the Iranian population understands well that the roots of many of these crises lie in the sanctions blockade and external pressure. This perception marks a fundamental distinction between Iran and other states, where protest potential can more easily evolve into political crisis. In Iran, there is a deeply rooted awareness that the country's sovereignty is under constant external threat. As a result, public criticism of the authorities rarely transforms into support for radical regime change - especially when the nation is under attack.

Moreover, Iran's political culture is marked by a high degree of adaptability and historical consciousness. While corruption is undoubtedly a destructive force, it is not universally perceived as a systemic evil that threatens the state's very foundations. Rather, it is seen as part of a broader social context, one that includes elements of traditional patronage systems and the cultural phenomenon of bakhshish. This is not to justify corruption - but to emphasize that an anti-corruption agenda does not necessarily translate into revolutionary mobilization.

An equally important factor is the absence of a consolidated and influential opposition within the country. The fragmented groups within the Iranian diaspora - including monarchists, liberals, and nationalists - lack both a coherent platform and a charismatic leader capable of uniting Iranian society. The figure of Reza Pahlavi, heir to the deposed shah, evokes not nostalgia but suspicion among most Iranians, especially the youth. He is widely seen as a relic of an old, authoritarian, and deeply pro-Western regime with no meaningful connection to contemporary Iranian realities. Any attempt to revive the idea of monarchy within the country is doomed to fail - both due to the weight of historical memory and the profound absence of political trust.

The waves of protest that periodically erupt in Iran tend to be spontaneous, fragmented, and focused on specific economic or social grievances. They lack political leadership and do not pursue the explicit goal of overthrowing the existing system. In fact, such protests often serve as indicators of political dynamics within the regime itself - rather than signs of its disintegration.

This was underscored by the outcome of the recent presidential election, in which Masoud Pezeshkian, a representative of the moderate reformist camp, emerged victorious. His election confirmed that despite external pressure and internal challenges, Iranian society continues to engage with institutional politics - not by seeking violent regime change, but by advocating for the gradual transformation of the system. Pezeshkian, known for his openness to dialogue and pragmatic approach to foreign policy, has come to embody the aspiration for change from within - without dismantling the state. However, his early efforts to ease tensions on the international stage were met not with diplomacy, but with missile strikes. This sent a clear message: neither the United States nor Israel is truly interested in "resetting" Iran - they seek only an outcome in which the country is stripped of agency and reduced to a managed space within a regional order defined by external powers.

Within this context, the prospect of rapid regime change in Iran appears increasingly illusory. The Islamic Republic remains a resilient state structure, underpinned by stable institutions, a political tradition, and a deeply rooted sense of cultural legitimacy. At this stage, destabilization could occur only through a full-scale external intervention - via subversive operations, the incitement of separatist sentiments, armed proxy support, and systemic backing of opposition forces. But such a course would demand not only immense resources and long-term commitment - it would also carry the risk of dragging the region into a major conflict that could spiral into open war with unpredictable consequences.

Against this backdrop, it appears that Israel's strategic goal is not to encourage reform or political transformation in Iran, but rather to dismantle the very foundations of Iranian statehood - as a force opposing Israeli and Western influence in the region. To achieve this, every available tool is being employed: from information warfare and diplomatic pressure to direct military action. The West - particularly Washington - has yet to formulate a coherent and consistent strategy. A serious ideological and political rift is emerging between official declarations about "democratization" and the de facto support for aggression against Iran. This cognitive dissonance is becoming increasingly apparent, both within Iranian society and on the international stage - further reinforcing the belief among many Iranians that the West's true objective is not to improve their lives, but to eliminate their country as an independent center of power.

It is becoming increasingly clear - both within Iran and beyond - that the aggression carried out by Israel and its Western allies against the Islamic Republic has nothing to do with democratization, human rights, or a genuine desire to improve the lives of ordinary Iranians. Behind the loud slogans of "freedom" and "reform" lies a far more pragmatic and ruthless objective: the elimination of Iran as a sovereign, independent, and inconvenient actor in the eyes of the Western-Israeli bloc. A country which, despite sanctions, pressure, and isolation, continues to maintain political agency and actively shape its own agenda in the Middle East - often in direct contradiction to the interests of Washington and West Jerusalem.

This is not about helping the Iranian people - it is about dismantling Iran as an independent center of power. Iran is not viewed as an object of salvation, but as an obstacle to the implementation of a comprehensive architecture of regional control. Thus, the aggression against it is not a defensive measure but a tool of geopolitical demolition.

This strategic motive is becoming increasingly undisguised. Israel openly signals that its goal is not de-escalation, but the neutralization of the Iranian threat by any means necessary - including the destruction of its nuclear and military infrastructure, the destabilization of its internal political system, and its diplomatic isolation. The US, while officially calling for restraint, has been effectively drawn into the conflict - not by choice, but under the weight of Israeli policy and domestic lobbying pressure. By initiating the military phase, Israel presented Washington with a fait accompli: either support your ally, or risk losing influence in the region. The Trump administration, despite its hardline rhetoric, exhibits internal division and strategic uncertainty - recognizing that large-scale intervention might not solve the problem but instead provoke a regional catastrophe.

As a result, a growing disconnect is emerging between declared intentions and actual behavior. On one hand, Iranian territory is being struck, civilians are dying, and infrastructure is being destroyed. On the other, efforts to preserve a narrow window for diplomatic dialogue continue. This political duality is not a sign of humanitarian concern - it is a reflection of fear: in the West, more voices are asking whether a war with Iran may prove to be the fatal miscalculation that not only fails to achieve its goals but also shatters regional stability - along with the reputational and strategic standing of those who initiated it.

The paradox is that both parts of the equation - the American political establishment and Iran's leadership - are increasingly aligned in one understanding: escalation does not lead to victory; it leads to mutual destruction. Unlike Israel, which is pursuing an all-out force-based solution aimed at eliminating Iran as a geopolitical rival, the US is attempting to walk a fine line - balancing its obligations to an ally with the imperative to avoid the catastrophic fallout of direct conflict. As long as even a trace of rational strategic analysis remains in Washington, the possibility of a diplomatic resolution still exists. But that window is closing rapidly - and with every new strike, it becomes less and less realistic.

It is becoming increasingly evident: behind the mask of "combating authoritarianism" and "containing the nuclear threat" lies a singular geopolitical calculation - to exclude Iran from the ranks of sovereign actors, to strip it of independent will, and to eliminate its ability to shape the regional agenda. This is not a struggle for reform - it is a struggle against the very existence of Iranian statehood. In this context, the primary restraining force today is not international law, nor the United Nations, nor formal agreements, but the cold strategic reasoning of those who still understand: in destroying Iran, one could just as easily destroy the fragile balance of Middle Eastern security - with consequences no political center will be able to fully control.

(RT.com)