Is This the End of the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Tehran cannot defend its territory from Israel attacks, and its leadership appears out of touch and desperate
So far, it isn’t even close. Israel’s bombing campaign is destroying not only Iran’s nuclear facilities but its ability to make war. After eliminating the Islamic Republic’s air defenses last fall, the Israeli air force now enjoys almost unprecedented freedom of operation over Iranian territory. Indeed, after hundreds of sorties, Israel has not lost a single aircraft.
Meanwhile, Israel’s intelligence operatives have clearly penetrated many key Iranian institutions and have even launched drone attacks from within Iran. The unpopularity of the Iranian regime has made it a spy recruiter’s paradise, meaning the Mossad may become an even greater threat in the months ahead.
Senior Iranian officials have wondered openly, “Where is our air defense?” Their own intelligence services failed to see the attack coming. Partly as a result, most of the country’s top military leaders and nuclear scientists have been killed. This war must be psychologically devastating to regime supporters.
Iran has fired hundreds of ballistic missiles at Israel, but many are being shot down. So far they have failed to hit any strategic targets. At the same time, Israel is attacking Iran’s missile sites and other military facilities, degrading its ability to respond.
Iran’s “forward defense” strategy of using proxies to check Israeli power also is in tatters. That’s because the Islamic Republic’s proxy forces—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen—are destroyed, degraded or otherwise engaged and have contributed nothing to Iran’s defense.
All the while, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to keep the air campaign going.
Disdain and Complacency
After Iran’s missile attacks on Israel last year, its nuclear program became the world’s most pressing international danger. Yet, in spite of the Trump administration’s repeated efforts to bring them to the negotiating table, Tehran acted with disdain and complacency. It ignored Trump’s deadline for reaching a compromise on its program through negotiations, likely assuming it was a bluff. Moreover, Iranian officials announced they had established another undisclosed nuclear material facility, defying the International Atomic Energy Agency, which last month ruled Tehran was in violation of its responsibilities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The U.S. intelligence community warned an Israeli attack would probably happen this year, according to news accounts. Intelligence that Israel was planning this attack was even publicly leaked last year.
Nevertheless, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 86, was surprised by the attack, according to The New York Times. Like many tyrants, Khamenei is shielded from reality by sycophantic advisers. It remains doubtful whether he realizes his Ahab-like pursuit of nuclear weapons at all costs may lead to his regime’s own destruction.
Tehran now finds itself without any good options. It can keep resisting the Israelis and watch what’s left of its nuclear program, its military and its energy sector literally go up in flames. Or it can negotiate—as it has recently indicated interest in doing—and likely be forced into a humiliating deal. Either choice might destabilize or even destroy the regime.
Who’s Next?
After years of reporting on Iran’s secret nuclear facilities, excessive nuclear enrichment beyond any conceivable civilian use and the consistent flouting of international law and norms, there is no doubt that Iran is trying to join the nuclear weapons club. For years, the U.S. intelligence community had stubbornly insisted there is no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Israel, on the other hand, believes Iran is near breakout for a bomb. Given Israel’s superior on-the-ground intelligence in Iran, which verdict seems more credible?
So far, however, Israel has damaged but not ruined Iran’s ability to make a bomb, and we don’t know exactly how far Israel has degraded Iran’s nuclear bomb-making capacity. We do know that the main nuclear material enrichment center at Natanz has suffered significant damage. The media also reports that even hard targets like the underground facility at Fordow, the key to stopping nuclear weapons development, have been hit. And so far, as David Sanger writes in The New York Times, the Israeli attacks have avoided Iran’s nuclear stockpile in Isfahan, as Netanyahu probably wants to avoid a major nuclear contamination catastrophe.
Meanwhile, President Trump is keeping the door open for negotiations, but it is doubtful Khamenei will agree to dismantle his nuclear program, which is the only acceptable terms for stable peace. At the same time, the longer Khamenei waits, the higher the price he will pay. But it is doubtful Israel has the striking power to destroy the underground enrichment facility Fordow without U.S. assistance. Therefore, can we stay out of this war?
The U.S. has, as per policy, claimed it is not behind the air attack on Iran. Regardless, we are in this fight. Just as we did last year when Iran attacked Israel, we must provide anti-missile defense, replenish Israeli munitions and keep the Houthis at bay. We also must secure the Strait of Hormuz for oil tankers. But most pressingly, if the Israelis cannot make much progress against Iran’s hard targets, we must be willing to destroy the underground nuclear complex at Fordow ourselves.
We have a strong stake in a decisive outcome to this war. In March, veteran Middle East analyst Karen Elliott House correctly argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that President Trump faced a moment of truth on Iran. The only solution was the dismantling of the nuclear program. “Any other outcome,” she argued, “endangers both Israel and Saudi Arabia, key U.S. partners in the Middle East, and destroys Mr. Trump’s credibility with the world.”
Although he sometimes appears to value “deals” for their own sake, President Trump now might accept that you cannot negotiate peace if one side wants to keep fighting. Last week he realized he had to give the green light to Israel’s attack. On Sunday, he warned Iran that if the conflict continues to escalate, the U.S. might become directly involved in the war. Trump continues to urge Tehran to come back to the table. But he also recognizes, as he told The Atlantic in June, “You can’t have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon.”
As already noted, desperate Iranian officials now wish to resume nuclear talks if the U.S. stays out of it, but it is hard to believe the Israelis would insist on anything short of a total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, which probably is a price Tehran isn’t yet willing to pay.
Whatever happens, the U.S. will likely come out of these events in a stronger position than before. Iran will be seriously weakened, if not crippled, and the administration will be able to resume promoting its reconciliation policy between Israel and the Gulf States, which are secretly cheering on these attacks. The Sunni Arabs in the Gulf hate and fear the Shias in Iran because the latter’s version of political Islam is a serious threat to the former’s political stability.
More significantly, this war might lead to regime change in Iran. Iran currently faces the most severe external threat since the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). But this time, the Islamic Republic faces a deadlier and more determined opponent. That war ended in 1988 when Iran’s ruler, the Ayatollah Khomeini, feared the U.S. would get involved. It might take a similar credible fear for his successor to end this one now, such as the threat of destroying Iran’s hardened nuclear sites with the U.S. Air Force’s “bunker buster” ordnance, which only the B-2 Spirit bomber can deliver.
But even if the war ends soon, this looks like the final act for the Islamic Republic. The Revolutionary Guard, the key pillar of the Khamenei dictatorship, is being discredited daily. It failed to detect a major attack. It lost another leader in an Israeli strike. It cannot protect the country, or even itself. In other words, it has no credibility with the Iranian people.
Dictatorships always live in fear, and this one has plenty to fear right now. Continued military losses probably will raise public discontent with a regime that is already widely despised. And as Israel now hits Iran’s all-important energy infrastructure, the Iranian public, always a smoldering volcano, will start feeling the direct economic impact of the war.
The regime has never completely suppressed the Iranian people’s willingness to resist and protest. There have been a number of large protest movements in recent decades. As little as three years ago, the mullahs had to brutally repress widespread protests of the government’s arrest and murder of a young woman who refused to wear a veil. Hundreds of thousands took to the streets, and more than 5,000 lost their lives. Does the shaken regime still have the will to carry out this level of repression?
The Islamic Republic might survive in the short term, but by exposing its incompetence and callousness toward its own population—unlike Israel, Tehran has provided its population no bomb shelters—the air attacks might encourage more open opposition, including among those key pillars of government support, the military and security services. These are the nuts that must crack if Iran’s regime is to collapse.
So far, we haven’t seen open signs of this happening, but that could change very quickly. Iran’s security services’ unwillingness to crack down on widespread protests and civil disorder in 1978 rapidly brought down the Shah in 1979. The same scenario may be about to unfold in Tehran in the days, weeks or months ahead.
 | A guest post by
|