The aftermath of an Israeli attack on Tehran, June 2025. Photo: Wikimedia.
By Taha Zeinali and Sara Larijani – Jul 4, 2025
The June 2025 US-Israeli military assault on Iran—featuring Israel’s Operation Rising Lion and the US Operation Midnight Hammer confronted by Iran’s defensive Operation True Promise 3—despite achieving short-term tactical victories, represents a profound strategic failure that has accelerated the US-led imperial decline and strengthened global anti-imperialist forces. Rather than cementing Western hegemony, this illegal act of aggression has exposed the terminal contradictions of a declining empire desperate to maintain unipolar control through increasingly aggressive military adventures.
The Unmasking of the ‘Rules-Based Order’
The weaponization of diplomacy as cover for military aggression represents a fundamental breach in the international order’s trust architecture. By launching the aggression after announcing the sixth round of US-Iran talks in Muscat—with full prior coordination between Trump and Netanyahu—the West transformed diplomatic engagement from a tool of conflict resolution into a tactical deception for pre-planned strikes. As one statement argues, “the timing and scale of this attack only underscores the fact that this was a long-planned orchestrated campaign of military aggression, diplomatic maneuver, intelligence warfare, sabotage, and media manipulation, executed with the full complicity and material support of the US and its vassals.” This calculated betrayal, mirroring the WMD fabrications that enabled Iraq’s destruction, has irrevocably shattered the credibility of Western diplomatic initiatives. The strategic use of negotiations as operational cover not only violates basic principles of good faith engagement but also establishes a precedent where any future Western diplomatic overture must be viewed as potential military subterfuge, fundamentally undermining the possibility of genuine dialogue between the West and nations of the global South.
Furthermore, the fraudulent nature of the Western “rules-based order” stands fully exposed in the diplomatic theater that followed the attacks. In a spectacle of Orwellian inversion, European powers rushed to blame the victim while exonerating the aggressor. France’s Foreign Ministry condemned “Iran’s ongoing nuclear program” and reaffirmed “Israel’s right to defend itself,” while the United Kingdom’s foreign secretary called on “all parties, especially Iran, to exercise restraint”—conspicuously omitting any criticism of Israel’s illegal strikes. Germany’s response proved most revealing: the foreign minister “strongly condemned the Iranian attack on Israeli territory” even before Iran’s initial retaliation, while Chancellor Friedrich Merz later declared, “This is dirty work that Israel is doing for all of us…. I can only say, I have the greatest respect for the fact that the Israeli army had the courage to do this.”
This diplomatic reversal—where victims become perpetrators—exemplifies Edward Said’s concept of Orientalist logic in Western discourse: Muslims must always appear as irrational aggressors, even when defending themselves from unprovoked attacks. The United Nations Secretary-General’s weak call for “all sides to avoid escalation” without condemning the aggression and attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is striking, showing how international institutions serve as what Noam Chomsky calls “instruments of the powerful,” using false neutrality to legitimize imperial violence. Notably, in 1981, UN Security Council Resolution 487 “condemned the military attack by Israel on the Iraqi nuclear installation as a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations” and demanded Israel “refrain from such acts or threats of aggression in the future.”
This blatant double standard crystallized a permanent rupture in Iranian consciousness. Western powers reflexively defending unprovoked aggression while condemning Iran’s defensive response shattered all illusions about their commitment to international law. This betrayal transcended diplomatic disappointment—it exposed Western values as mere rhetorical weapons serving imperial interests. The depth of this shift emerged in Mohsen Chavoshi’s song “Alaj,” released the day of the US bombings, with lyrics declaring, “People! The remedy is in the homeland. The world is mere lip service; this battle is shield against shield. Free souls of the world, settle the matter with the slave masters!”
Nuclear Proliferation: The Empire’s Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The weaponization of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s technical assessments represents a masterclass in imperial manipulation. The IAEA director’s June report became a strategic weapon for Israeli and Western aggression. One day after the IAEA’s politically motivated comprehensive report accusing “Iran of failing to meet obligations,” the United States and Israel launched their long-planned assault. In this regard, Grossi’s biased verification became stage-setting for military treachery, as Israel and the US used IAEA processes to justify pre-planned aggression, demonstrating how UN institutional and technical bodies become complicit when US-led imperialism weaponizes their “findings.”
Consequently, by allowing its reports to trigger violence instead of preventing it, the IAEA demonstrated that its assessments serve hegemonic interests rather than non-proliferation, which undermines its perceived neutrality in the global South. As nuclear proliferation expert Jeffrey Lewis warned, the attacks “will send shockwaves throughout the world” as nations conclude that “without nuclear deterrence, no nation is safe from Western aggression.”
The US-Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, while achieving short-term tactical gains, paradoxically accelerate the very proliferation they claim to prevent through three reinforcing mechanisms. First, by targeting peaceful facilities under IAEA monitoring, the attacks transform a transparent, internationally supervised program into an opaque one beyond Western control, as Iran moves operations underground and ceases cooperation with inspectors—creating the intelligence blind spot the attackers feared. When a peaceful program under international oversight is attacked by the US and Israeli regimes without any consequences for the aggressors, it creates powerful incentives to move facilities underground and disperse them, cease or limit cooperation with international monitors, and accelerate clandestine development. Notably, Iran’s parliament immediately ratified suspension of IAEA cooperation, while other nations watched and learned. Second, external aggression generates unprecedented domestic unity and popular demand for nuclear deterrence in Iran, transforming what was once a debated policy into a matter of national survival across all political factions. Third, military action against a nation complying with international agreements destroys any remaining diplomatic credibility, sending an unmistakable message that compliance does not guarantee security and makes maximum deterrence the only rational strategy. This creates a regional cascade effect where other nations, observing that NPT adherence and IAEA cooperation provide no protection from attack, conclude that nuclear weapons serve “not as a threat, but as a shield”—potentially doubling the number of nuclear-armed states within decades. Thus, strikes intended to prevent Iran’s nuclear weaponization may have “more or less guaranteed that Iran will be a nuclear weapons state in five to 10 years,” according to a former IAEA inspector—transforming prevention into acceleration through a self-fulfilling prophecy of proliferation.
Normalizing Catastrophe: The West’s Moral Numbness
The Western public’s complicity in normalizing attacks on nuclear facilities—acts explicitly prohibited under international law—represents a catastrophic moral failure that will inevitably boomerang against Western interests. This ethical numbness, which is already evident in the silence regarding Gaza’s genocide, has set precedents that fundamentally compromise global nuclear security. By legitimizing strikes on safeguarded nuclear infrastructure, Western states have created a playbook that any actor can invoke, transforming their own nuclear facilities into legitimate targets under the logic they themselves have normalized. The sophisticated drone and quadcopter assassination campaigns celebrated in Western media as technological triumphs have democratized precision strike capabilities in ways that fundamentally disadvantage established powers. The proliferation of small FPV quadcopters capable of penetrating urban areas and infrastructure for terrorist operations—tactics perfected through the Zionist regime’s operations deep within Iranian territory—provides asymmetric actors with cost-effective templates for targeting Western interests. These lethal autonomous systems, applauded when deployed against Iranian scientists, officials, and civilians, will inevitably be replicated by groups planning attacks on Western soil. The technology cannot be contained; once normalized as legitimate warfare, these methods become universally available tools that favor weaker actors against technologically superior adversaries.
This boomerang effect extends beyond tactics to fundamental security vulnerabilities. Western support for indiscriminate quadcopter attacks that kill civilians alongside intended targets has legitimized a form of warfare where the distinction between combatants and non-combatants dissolves. The precedent of attacking nuclear facilities—once considered the ultimate taboo—means Western nuclear infrastructure now operates under the constant threat of similar strikes, justified by the very logic Western states championed. The complicity of Western publics in endorsing these violations of international law has not merely eroded moral authority but created tangible security risks that will haunt their societies for generations.
Manufacturing Consent for Aggression
The systematic media campaign followed the propaganda model Herman and Chomsky documented decades ago. Western outlets consistently framed unprovoked Israeli strikes as “defensive” while Iran was actively negotiating; amplified false claims about imminent nuclear threats despite IAEA contradictions; minimized Iranian civilian casualties (over 600 dead) while emphasizing Israeli military targets; and transformed Iran’s restrained response into “escalation.”
This transparent operation, reminiscent of Iraq WMD deceptions, has accelerated the collapse of Western media credibility across the Global South, driving audiences toward alternative information sources. For the Iranian public, this media blitz definitively unmasked Western journalism’s claimed neutrality as manufactured consent in service of imperial narratives. The brazen distortion of reality—portraying clear aggression as self-defense while casting legitimate retaliation as terrorism—has altered how Iranians view Western information sources. This represents more than media skepticism; it has ignited the emergence of an epistemological break where populations reject not just Western conclusions, but the very frameworks through which the West interprets global events.
The Boomerang of Regime Change Strategy
Beyond targeting Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Israel and the US pursued regime change through targeted assassinations of military commanders and systematic attacks on civilian infrastructure. This strategy fatally misread both the Islamic Republic’s military resilience and Iranian society’s response to external aggression.
The assassination campaign aimed to neutralize IRGC’s retaliatory capabilities through shock and decapitation. Despite successfully martyring numerous top commanders, Iranian missiles struck Tel Aviv less than 24 hours with devastating impact—shattering Israeli and US expectations of a paralyzed command structure.
Israel then deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure, particularly IRIB’s television studios, seeking to create chaos that would trigger popular uprising. This calculated terrorism altogether killed over 600 civilians but produced the opposite effect: unprecedented national unity transcending political divisions. The iconic image of an Iranian presenter continuing her broadcast as bombs fell became a symbol of defiance. Even government critics rallied to defend sovereignty against foreign aggression. As one Tehran professor noted: “They united us in ways our government never could.” The stark choice between opposing one’s government and defending one’s nation dissolved when faced with external assault. Ultimately, the regime-change opposition watched their hopes collapse as the Islamic Republic demonstrated unexpected resilience and Iranians rallied behind the military defenders despite the surprise terrorist assault.
Political Suicide of the Opposition
The opposition’s support for foreign military attacks ultimately proved to be politically fatal. Pro–regime change figures who backed the US-Israeli assault—explicitly or implicitly—found themselves utterly isolated from Iranian public opinion. Their alignment with forces bombing Iranian civilians was widely viewed as treason. Opposition figures who had cultivated international profiles through Western media and funding, Nobel prizes, and cultural awards saw decades of credibility vanish overnight. By calling for regime overthrow while foreign bombs fell on their countrymen, they committed what analysts termed “political suicide,” permanently destroying their viability as political alternatives.
Iran Transformed
The civilian casualties and infrastructure damage also intensified anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment across Iranian society, gaining renewed emotional resonance as direct responses to military aggression. This emotional shift strengthened pro-resistance elements within Iran while discrediting those who had advocated for diplomatic engagement with the West with the hope of normalization of relations.
The regime change strategy thus achieved the inverse of its intended effects: rather than weakening the Islamic Republic of Iran, it consolidated domestic support around resistance to foreign intervention, eliminated viable opposition alternatives, and provided the government with renewed legitimacy as defenders of national sovereignty against foreign aggression.
Despite tactical military losses, Iran emerged politically stronger with enhanced national cohesion. The attacks against a nation actively engaged in negotiations generated widespread domestic support for resistance, strengthening defense forces and the IRGC’s legitimacy as a defender of national sovereignty. Supreme Leader Khamenei’s warning that Iran “will not surrender” to foreign aggression resonated across Iranian society, while the systematic targeting of nuclear scientists and military commanders was perceived as an attack on Iranian civilization itself. The aggression vindicated decades of Iranian warnings about Western imperial intentions.
Peoples and Regimes: Anti-Imperialism and the Islamic Republic of Iran
The Illusion of Air Supremacy
Israel and the United States’ achievement of temporary air superiority through terrorist attacks from within Iran failed to accomplish strategic objectives. As military historians note, translating tactical success into strategic success requires more than what air power can deliver. Despite over 1,000 Israeli sorties, Iran’s nuclear program suffered only temporary degradation. US intelligence assessments concluded the strikes “only set back” capabilities “by months.” Furthermore, the US intelligence apparatus is unable to confirm with certainty how successful the bombing of Fordow was and whether the stockpile of enriched uranium was moved before the strike.
This uncertain outcome validates the historical lesson no imperial power seems capable of learning: air power alone cannot achieve political objectives. From Vietnam to Afghanistan, the delusion that technological superiority translates into political control has repeatedly proven false.
The Myth of Israel’s Impenetrable Air Defense
Iran’s unprecedented missile offensive during Operation True Promise III delivered a decisive strategic blow to Israeli deterrence by exposing critical vulnerabilities in its air defense architecture. Launching over 550 ballistic missiles alongside 1,000+ drones in coordinated waves, Iran demonstrated an ability to conduct saturation attacks that overwhelmed defensive systems despite high interception rates.
The US-Israeli war on Iran exposed the economic unsustainability of imperial military dominance. Israel expended interceptor missiles faster than production capacity, forcing reliance on increasingly expensive US munitions. Iran’s asymmetric response using relatively cheap drones and missiles demonstrated how “the cost-benefit curve is upside down” when “$10,000 one-way drones” threaten “$2 million missiles.” The economic arithmetic of imperial decline manifested starkly in the conflict’s cost dynamics. Israel expended interceptor missiles faster than production capacity, each $3 million Arrow interceptor defeating a $10,000 Iranian drone—what one analyst called an “upside-down cost curve” that guarantees bankruptcy through victory. This mirrors historical patterns of empires exhausting themselves through military overextension, from Rome to Britain.
Iran’s missile offensive revealed three critical realities: sophisticated tactics penetrated Israel’s Iron Dome and Arrow systems, proving that even the most advanced and expensive air defense systems leave critical infrastructure exposed to residual strikes. Iran has weaponized cost asymmetry, as Iran’s inexpensive drones and missiles forced Israel to expend multimillion-dollar interceptors at unsustainable rates. Deterrence erosion occurred as Iran proved it could launch precision strikes from its territory directly at Israeli soil—shattering the myth of Israel’s invulnerability. Iran’s missile offensive shattered Israeli deterrence mythology by demonstrating that sophisticated tactics could penetrate even the most advanced air defense systems. The psychological impact—proving Israel vulnerable to direct attack from Iranian territory—fundamentally altered regional power calculations.
Catalyst of Multipolarity
While providing limited direct military support, China and Russia’s diplomatic solidarity signaled hardening geopolitical divisions. China’s condemnation of “violations of Iran’s sovereignty” and Russia’s denunciation of “absolutely unprovoked aggression” marked the consolidation of alternative power structures. Even traditional US allies called for restraint, revealing cracks in imperial architecture.
The war of aggression represents what critical analysts identify as the “desperate phase” of imperial decline, when dominant powers resort to increasingly reckless military adventures to maintain control. The inability to secure broad international support, domestic American opposition, and the ultimate necessity for hasty ceasefire negotiations revealed the limits of unipolar power projection.
The aggression definitively confirmed that the West seeks Iran’s destruction, not accommodation. No diplomatic engagement or restraint could shield Iran from US-led imperial violence. This brutal clarity accelerates Iran’s pivot toward comprehensive integration with China, Russia, and North Korea—forging an Eastern bloc united against US hegemony. Beyond economic ties, Iran now leans toward full-spectrum military coordination with these powers as an existential necessity, not a policy preference. The defense minister’s immediate post-ceasefire trip to China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) defense ministers’ meeting signaled this strategic realignment. The war catalyzed stark global polarization: the multipolar order emerges not through gradual transition but through hardening opposing camps—a dynamic Western firepower cannot reverse.
Iran as Vanguard of Global Resistance
Rather than isolating Iran, the attacks enhanced its credibility as the primary force resisting Western domination. The act of aggression validated Iran’s consistent argument that accommodation with imperial powers remains impossible, strengthening anti-imperialist factions throughout the region. Iran’s missile strikes resonated far beyond military calculations, igniting support by peoples across the world horrified by Western complicity in Gaza’s genocide. For millions watching international institutions fail to address the atrocities by the Zionist regime, Iran’s missiles represented the most powerful resistance to Zionist aggression in decades.
This moment shattered decades of Orientalist caricature that painted Iran as a “rogue” and “reactionary” state. Instead, Iran emerged as the most consequential and principled power in West Asia, embodying the aspirations of those who demand justice, dignity, and a genuine end to impunity. Iran’s defiance redefined regional possibilities and exposed the moral bankruptcy of states complicit in ongoing genocide.
Iran’s direct confrontation with both Israel and the US simultaneously—previously considered suicidal—demonstrated a confidence that resonated across the Global South. As one Arab commentator noted, “They did what our governments only dream of.”
Strategic Implications for Forces
The June 2025 aggression, like previous imperial adventures, has accelerated rather than arrested processes of imperial decline. By choosing military confrontation over diplomatic engagement, the US and Israel validated arguments that Western imperialism respects only strength. The attacks have proven nuclear deterrence remains the ultimate sovereignty guarantee; air supremacy cannot achieve political transformation; high-tech militarism has inherent limitations; and imperial violence represents weakness, not strength.
For anti-imperialist forces globally, Iranian resistance provides both tactical lessons and strategic inspiration. The failure of overwhelming military superiority to achieve political objectives demonstrates that sustained resistance remains possible. As historians observe, “Every empire believes itself eternal until the moment it falls.”
The US-Israeli aggression against Iran marks not the restoration of imperial authority but its terminal crisis—a violent spasm of declining empire that has strengthened rather than weakened global resistance to Western domination. In this light, the empire’s tactical victory becomes history’s verdict: a pyrrhic triumph accelerating the very multipolar transition it sought to prevent.
Taha Zeinali is a researcher at the Center for the Study of Resistance, Sovereignty, and Development (MOHAAT) at the University of Tehran.
Sara Larijani is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for the Study of Resistance, Sovereignty, and Development (MOHAAT) at the University of Tehran.
