Ending an Unfinished Task in Middle East Security

Operation Rising Lion transformed the security map of the Middle East. For the first time, conflict between Israel and the Islamic Republic moved beyond proxy warfare and entered direct confrontation. The attack was short on the surface, but its consequences continue to unfold. Since then, a new question has taken shape in political and security circles worldwide: Was this only the beginning of a new phase? And if a second stage—a renewed Israeli strike on the Islamic Republic—is put on the agenda, what would it need to achieve real results?

In recent weeks, analysis has centered on two main axes: first, the likelihood and timing of the next attack; second, its nature and scope. So far, there is no definitive sign of an imminent strike, but a series of diplomatic and military movements indicates that the matter remains under review. Yet the deeper question is this: even if such an attack occurs, how should it be designed so that its outcome promotes regional stability rather than reproducing the crisis?

At this point, disagreements among analysts become clear. Some emphasize a limited strike; others insist on the need for a comprehensive, decisive blow. Amid this debate, one point has remained almost overlooked: the role of the Iranian people. Over the past four decades, the Islamic Republic has shown that it feeds on crisis. External threat for the regime is not a danger but an opportunity.

Whenever the Islamic Republic has felt threatened, it has relied on propaganda and anti-Israel slogans to clamp down on domestic dissent and shut society down. But last summer’s Israeli attacks, in addition to collapsing mental walls of fear and repression among the public, demonstrated that this terrorist regime can no longer survive through crisis-manufacturing as it did over the past forty years.

Israel’s twelve-day operation inside Iran drained the Islamic Republic’s military-security apparatus. The regime is now at the weakest point in its history—like a lion stripped of its mane and tail.

The next attack—whose timing nobody knows—would be the beginning of Israel’s unfinished task, completing the twelve-day operation. This time, it would be carried out with an even deeper understanding of Iranian society. That understanding, displayed last summer, delighted the Iranian public: the operation caused no harm to ordinary civilians or to infrastructure tied to daily life.

The precision and sensitivity of Israel’s twelve-day operation show that the fates of Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan will not be repeated in Iran—despite all the propaganda of the regime and its allies. One only needs to look at Israel’s firepower in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Gaza to understand this point.

With all this in mind, three possible paths lie ahead for Iran and the region:

First: a popular uprising and the fall of the regime without foreign military intervention. This is not a dream, but a real possibility. The people’s desire for change has taken shape; trust among social forces is growing; and fractures within the military structure signal instability in the regime. The main obstacle is not society’s inability, but the hesitation and appeasement of Western powers, who still emphasize “behavior change” rather than regime change. If the international community accepts reality and stands with the people, an internal transition could occur sustainably and legitimately, without direct military involvement.

Second: a popular uprising occurring simultaneously with Israel’s second strike on the Islamic Republic. If properly designed and supported, this scenario could be the fastest and least costly path to ending the regime. In this case, the foreign strike would play a complementary role, not a primary one. Military operations could shatter the pillars of power and open space for a general uprising. But two conditions are essential: first, coordination between domestic forces and external supporters; second, ensuring that Iranians do not feel they are being used as tools of foreign powers. If these conditions are met, the synergy between external military pressure and internal public will could deliver a decisive blow.

Third: a second Israeli strike as the beginning of a new phase, which then creates the conditions for a popular uprising. This scenario becomes possible when the military operation inflicts such damage that the regime’s security and propaganda machinery collapses, giving people room to act. Here, the responsibility of the international community doubles: it must keep communication channels open, strengthen independent narratives, and provide political and media support for public mobilization. Success depends on rapid communication, coordinated information, and real-time trust. If such groundwork is laid, the second strike could become the final catalyst for ending the regime.

Although these three paths differ, they share one core truth: none of them will succeed without the presence of the Iranian people. A limited strike cannot bring change; a broad strike without the people brings only destruction; and a popular uprising without global support will be strangled by repression. All three require a new understanding of the interplay between internal and external forces—a synergy that, if achieved, could end one of the region’s longest dictatorships.

For Israel and its allies, understanding this reality is vital. The ultimate goal should not simply be destroying the Islamic Republic’s military capacity, but ending the cycle that keeps the regime alive: the cycle of propaganda, fear, and control. This goal is only attainable with the active participation of Iranian society at the moment of crisis. The Iranian people are not the enemy—they are the natural allies of any force seeking regional stability. They are the direct victims of the regime’s anti-Israel and anti-American policies, paying the price for more than four decades.

For any military action to result in lasting change, three principles must be at its core.

First: Communication. The Islamic Republic always cuts communication at the first sign of crisis, leaving people in darkness. From the internet to phone networks to satellite signals, every tool is used to isolate society from the world. In a second strike, if real change is to be possible, steps must be taken to keep communication channels open. Communication means awareness, and awareness means resisting the regime’s narrative.

Second: Narrative. The regime has survived above all by controlling the narrative. In every crisis, through lies, distortion, and propaganda, it presents itself as the defender of the nation. Any attack carried out without an alternative narrative is doomed to a propaganda defeat. Independent media networks must be prepared in advance to convey accurate information to Iran and the world. Today’s wars are wars of images and words, not just rockets.

Third: The ultimate target. The goal of any strike should not be merely damaging facilities but disabling the machinery of repression. The true centers of power in the Islamic Republic are not nuclear sites but the leadership hierarchy, the security apparatus, and the financial and propaganda institutions. Only when these are neutralized can real transition become possible. Physical destruction without collapsing the leadership and command structure risks leading to a long, exhausting campaign.

Beside these three pillars, one must recognize this: the Islamic Republic disguises its own operatives as civilians—the same plainclothes forces who, using shotguns, kill and blind people without hesitation. The regime presents these criminals as ordinary citizens to undermine any successful operation. In such conditions, it portrays itself as the victim to gain international sympathy.

The world must understand that the Iranian people are part of the solution, while the Islamic Republic is the problem—and its removal is the shortest path to resolution. People must seize international opportunities that weaken and isolate the Islamic Republic militarily and economically; this is the only realistic element for bringing down the regime.

In the end, the central issue is the role of the Iranian people. They themselves are the decisive factor, and Israel has repeatedly sent direct messages to them. A large-scale strike without their participation cannot guarantee liberation from the Islamic Republic.

An anti-terror operation carried out with mutual understanding for a nation whose country is occupied is not war—it is a gift.

It is the people who can choose to embrace this gift, or reject it and remain in the occupier’s cage, humiliated and killed day after day.