Tehran’s Options Narrow as Israel Bets on Sparking Unrest Inside Iran

On Friday at dawn, Israel shocked the world by launching a broad military assault across Iranian territory—an unexpected escalation, at least in the short term. The regime claimed the attack targeted the very “heart” of Iran’s nuclear program in an operation it named “Rising Lion.”

The offensive appeared to catch Iran’s military leadership off guard, possibly delaying an immediate retaliatory strike. But it remains unclear whether the operation achieved its central objective: crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities—which Tel Aviv alleges are nearing weaponisation. At the time of writing, no verified assessments can confirm the full extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear reactors.

According to Danny Citrinowicz, a senior fellow at the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies, the assault struck a psychological blow to Iranian prestige by breaching its air defences and assassinating senior commanders. Yet he concedes the attack’s actual impact on the nuclear infrastructure was limited, noting that heavily fortified sites like Fordow remain intact.

Shortly after the strike, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that three key facilities—Fordow, Isfahan, and Bushehr—were not affected by Israeli missiles, citing Iranian officials.

The agency’s director general later confirmed that Iran’s largest nuclear site, Natanz, was struck. Video footage showed plumes of smoke rising from the area, but radiation levels reportedly remained stable.

Experts cited by CNN noted that Iran had spent years reinforcing its nuclear architecture, using specialised concrete, underground tunnel networks, and 90-degree turn layouts to make it extremely difficult to destroy the program through airstrikes alone.

A Strike That May Backfire

While Israeli officials may have hoped the strikes would degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities, early intelligence suggests a different outcome—one that could push Tehran to commit fully to developing nuclear weapons, seeing it as a matter of national survival rather than mere deterrence.

According to early intelligence assessments, the “Rising Lion” campaign was not solely a military strike. It was a dual-purpose operation: intended to humiliate Iran militarily, and ultimately trigger internal regime collapse by showcasing its vulnerability.

Some commentators have speculated that this bold move could ignite public unrest within Iran. However, more grounded predictions suggest the attack may instead unite the Iranian people around their leadership, delaying calls for reform in the name of national stability and resistance.

As former CIA officer Thomas S. Erick notes, no regime change has ever succeeded through aerial bombardment alone, no matter how precise. Despite the confirmed deaths of top IRGC commanders, Iran’s government remains too cohesive and resilient for a “color revolution” to succeed.

A Dangerous Strategic Gamble

Erick argues that Israel should now pursue a practical strategy—with U.S. cooperation—to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. However, doing so would likely require major concessions, including a negotiated end to the Gaza war and preventing Hamas from reclaiming power, while also offering Palestinians a path toward reconstruction, dignity, and peace.

One underreported development occurred just hours before the Israeli strikes: the IAEA passed a resolution—for the first time in 20 years—accusing Iran of non-compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). This may have emboldened Israel, interpreting the vote as diplomatic justification for its military aggression.

Yet despite the PR campaign, Israeli reports indicate growing concern that Tehran may interpret the attack as evidence that it has no other choice but to go nuclear—if it hasn’t already.

Iran now faces a critical decision: either accelerate its nuclear program or risk being permanently vulnerable. And unlike Iraq in 1981 or Syria in 2007—both of which depended on foreign support—Iran possesses indigenous expertise, technology, and infrastructure. It needs no foreign scientists.

As Jonathan Panikoff of the Atlantic Council writes, this may seem irrational amid an ongoing military assault. But to Iranian leaders, a nuclear weapon represents regime survival, much like North Korea’s model.

This work demands time, pressure, and sacrifice.
But we do it—for the Ummah, and for the truth.
If you believe in this mission, stand with us.

Click here to Donate & Support Us

Netanyahu’s Risky War Amid Crisis at Home

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s gamble comes amid deep internal instability. Many Israelis question whether the operation was driven by strategic necessity or political self-preservation, as trust in the government hits historic lows.

Israeli historian and journalist Yaakov Katz, writing in The Jerusalem Post, notes that missions of this magnitude should only be undertaken when the government enjoys broad legitimacy, and the people are unified in belief that such actions serve true national security—not the survival of political elites.

Instead, Israel now finds itself teetering on the edge of regional war, with cities vulnerable to unprecedented retaliation, and leadership under scrutiny both domestically and internationally.

Tehran’s Confused Battlefield Map

Despite the chaos, Tehran’s strategic choices remain clouded. The shock, damage, and ongoing air raids have delayed clear policy responses on both the diplomatic and military fronts.

As a result, the sixth round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the U.S.—scheduled for June 15—is unlikely to proceed. With diplomacy on the back foot, Iran’s military retaliation risks widening the cycle of escalation.

According to U.S. intelligence estimates, Iran possesses over 2,000 missiles, many capable of carrying warheads exceeding 900 kg, and continues producing around 50 ballistic missiles per month. It remains unclear how much of this capability was affected by Israel’s attack.

There is also growing speculation that Iran may withdraw from the NPT, the cornerstone of global nuclear arms control. While U.S. intelligence currently believes Iran is not actively building a weapon, the Israeli attack may now be used to justify abandoning its NPT commitments, according to analyst Kian Sharifi of Radio Free Europe.

Former Israeli National Security Council deputy Eran Etzion put it bluntly: “Netanyahu has opened a new chapter in the Middle East — the era of Israeli-Iranian nuclear warfare.” He warned in Express that Tel Aviv’s aggression may have just handed the Iranian regime domestic and international legitimacy to pursue the very weapon Israel seeks to prevent.