 |
| Maria Mahmoudian |
According to Reuters, the conflict resulted in over 1,000 Iranian deaths and decimated parts of the country’s missile infrastructure, air defence systems and nuclear research facilities. Yet the deeper impact was political. The war highlighted a leadership structure steeped in ideological rigidity and plagued by strategic miscalculation — a regime far more adept at suppressing dissent than safeguarding national security.
Strategic miscalculation and intelligence collapse
The Iranian regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, gravely underestimated the scale and precision of the Israeli
Dimitrios Karamitros: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
According to assessments from the Israel Defense and Security Forum (IDSF), Iran’s decision not to disperse its air defence units and command centres left the country’s critical infrastructure fatally exposed. In the opening 72 hours, Israeli jets and long-range drones neutralized over 80 per cent of Iran’s active missile systems, killed several senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders, and struck deep into facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — the symbolic heart of Iran’s nuclear program.
While Iran retaliated with hundreds of missile and drone strikes targeting Israeli and U.S. positions, Al Jazeera reported that over 90 per cent of these projectiles were intercepted, leaving Iran militarily depleted and diplomatically cornered.
The political cost of revolutionary dogma
For over four decades, the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy has been driven by a doctrine of “resistance” — against the West, against Israel and against perceived regional encirclement. Yet this rigid ideological orientation has left Iran inflexible and isolated at key strategic junctures.
Just weeks before the war, Iran withdrew from nuclear talks in Oman and limited cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. According to The Guardian, this decision removed any diplomatic safety valve and ensured Iran would face Israel and the U.S. with no external backing. Even longtime strategic partners like Russia and China issued only tepid statements, providing no material or political support during the conflict.
This isolation was not accidental — it was engineered by Tehran’s own political class. As political analyst Jack Mendelsohn argued, “Iran’s revolutionary diplomacy has turned into a doctrine of self-sabotage. It has burned bridges with every actor capable of restraining escalation, including its own neighbours.”
Regime survival vs. national interest
In the days following the ceasefire, announced on June 24 by U.S. President Donald Trump, the Iranian regime shifted its focus inward — not to accountability or reform, but to control. Supreme Leader Khamenei, in his first speech after the war, declared that Iran had “defended its sovereignty with honour,” but made no mention of the widespread destruction or the thousands left homeless in cities like Isfahan and Mashhad.
Instead, the state turned its security apparatus against its own people. According to Amnesty International, at least 3,000 individuals were arrested during and after the war under charges of “spreading false information,” “cooperation with foreign media” or “undermining national morale.” These included activists, students and even family members of those killed in the strikes.
The regime’s response revealed its true priority: regime survival over national reconstruction. Rather than unify the population around a postwar recovery plan, Tehran has doubled down on surveillance, censorship and moral policing. This reactionary posture risks deepening the already widening gulf between the state and its citizens — especially among youth, ethnic minorities and women.
A damaged regional strategy
The war also undermined Iran’s regional strategy, particularly its position as the self-declared leader of the so-called “Axis of Resistance.” Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran-aligned militias in Iraq and Syria issued statements of support but refrained from meaningful military involvement. As noted by Al Arabiya, this restraint underscores a shifting dynamic: Iran’s proxies no longer see unlimited value in marching to Tehran’s drumbeat, especially when the costs of escalation grow exponentially.
Moreover, Gulf Arab states — particularly the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia — have grown increasingly aligned with Israeli security interests, particularly on the issue of Iranian missile and drone threats. Iran’s war has only accelerated these diplomatic and military ties, effectively tightening the regional encirclement Iran has long feared.
Political inflection point
While Iran’s ruling elite has tried to spin the war as a moral and spiritual victory, the political reality is more sobering. The Islamic Republic now finds itself:
- Strategically weakened, with reduced deterrent capability.
- Diplomatically isolated, even among nominal allies.
- Economically battered, facing renewed sanctions and capital flight.
- Domestically unstable, as public trust in leadership reaches historic lows.
According to postwar polling by the Center for Iranian Studies in Istanbul, only 18 per cent of Iranians expressed confidence in the government’s handling of the conflict. Civil unrest has returned to cities like Shiraz and Kermanshah, with demonstrators chanting slogans reminiscent of the 2022 and 2019 uprisings.
Even within the political elite, divisions are beginning to show. Former parliament speaker Ali Larijani, now a senior adviser to Khamenei, reportedly criticized the leadership’s “unstrategic pride” and warned of further instability if diplomacy is not revived. “Tehran’s enemies were not just on the outside,” he said, according to IranWire, “they were in the mirror.”
Tehran at a crossroads
The 12-day war with Israel was more than a military confrontation — it was a referendum on the direction of Iran’s political system. What it revealed is a state that is increasingly brittle: ideologically rigid, diplomatically adrift and internally repressive. Unless Tehran recalibrates its foreign policy and rethinks its authoritarian impulses, the real casualty of this conflict may not be its missile sites — but its political future.
In war, the Islamic Republic may have survived. In politics, it has been profoundly weakened.
Maria Mahmoudian, PhD (SJE), MBA from Rotman and MEd from OISE, University of Toronto, is a dedicated educator with extensive teaching experience. An entrepreneur for over 15 years, she successfully owned and operated a business. Contact MariaMahmoudian@utoronto.ca.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.