Israeli and U.S. attacks have dealt a major blow to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The public, aware that the regime’s ambitions brought war to the home front, did not rally behind it. Nor have Iranians risen up in protest—and for good reason. Now, a paranoid and humiliated state is ready for talks, as it turns on its own terrified people. But the Trump Administration should resist dialogue that does not include opening a path to a more representative political system that gives voice to Iranians who do not want the present hostility with the West.

For decades, Western policymakers have underestimated Iran’s soft power, focusing narrowly on dismantling its military and nuclear capabilities in the hope that this alone would deliver peace. Israel’s Operation Rising Lion and U.S. bunker buster bombs on various nuclear sites on June 21 was the culmination of that strategy. But it is a failed one nonetheless. Even a nuclear-free Iran remains a grave threat to the region and the West, to say nothing of Iranians themselves.

Various approaches to Iran—isolation, containment, engagement, and maximum pressure—have failed to curb the regime’s malign activities. The Islamic Republic’s allied militant groups may be hobbled for now, but the regime continues to wield influence through Islamic centers, schools and universities, and mosques across Africa, Latin America, Europe, and Asia. The Supreme Leader’s speeches and propaganda are available in eight languages on his website. This machinery radicalizes communities, recruits operatives, launders funds, and targets opponents abroad.

Iranians who want peace and prosperity have no say in their country’s foreign policy. The current laws and practices ensure, by design, that decision making remains in the hand of those loyal to revolutionary ideals and dissent is suppressed. Even officials inclined toward reform are unable to overcome these obstacles. Elections are tightly controlled, opposition is criminalized, political parties are banned, and dissenters—even peaceful ones are silenced.

Expecting Iranians to rise up during Israel’s bombing campaign was, at best, unrealistic. They have risen up again and again since March 1979. They were met with death, beatings, prison, and torture. My organization has documented the execution of at least 4,376 activists—including 175 children—following the mass protest of June 20, 1981. The regime has continued to violently crush protests ever since, including the recent Woman, Life, Freedom movement.

In 2025 alone, Iran has executed at least 629 people—102 of them last month. A number of ethnic and religious minorities, including Kurds, are among those who have been put to death. Hundreds more have also been arrested on suspicion of being part of an “Israeli spy network” following the 12-day Iran-Israel war that began on June 13, and many potentially face execution.

Today, Iran’s leaders are weakened and broke. Their legitimacy is at a historic low. They’ve lost regional leverage with the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria and Israel’s assault on Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Hamas. This hobbled position offers a rare chance for the international community—in consultation with experts as well as Iranian activists and victims—to demand concrete, verifiable steps toward genuine political inclusion.

What does that look like?

1. Put Iranians’ rights at the heart of negotiations. Any agreement should be binding and include guarantees for freedom of religion and belief, association, expression, and the right to fair elections. Iran is already bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—demand compliance under international supervision.

2. Tie sanctions relief and economic incentives to political milestones. Examples include the release of all political prisoners, the repeal of laws criminalizing dissent, dismantling bodies such as the Guardian Council that block free participation and dissidents’ access to media.

3. Engage and empower Iran’s civil society. This means sustained support for independent media, human rights defenders, labor unions, and women’s rights activists, among others. They are the West’s natural allies in building a lasting peace.

4. Be consistent. Past approaches—isolation, containment, or short-term engagement—have failed by focusing on weapons rather than people’s rights and the regime’s structures of control. An effective strategy is one that is innovative and consistent, aiming for long term rather than short term results.

There are still question marks over the extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the fate of the country’s enriched uranium. But it is important to acknowledge that no Israeli or U.S. bomb can dismantle Iran’s machinery of repression. No airstrike can uproot its indoctrinated global networks. Only a credible political opening—backed by conditions, pressure, and robust support for Iranians—can erode the foundations of clerical rule.

Now is the time to do better than another nuclear deal. This is the opportunity to seek a lasting agreement that benefits both Iranians and the world, one that includes the majority of Iranians who reject a regime that steals their resources, isolates their country, and impoverishes them. Many Iranians have fought for this right, at great cost. They are relevant to any talks.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Israeli insiders on Iran war and building a “different Middle East”

Israel’s surprise attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 13 launched a 12-day war in which Israeli jets pounded Tehran and other Iranian cities while Iran launched hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones at Israel. The United States, Israel’s chief international sponsor, joined the war a week later, using long-range bombers and submarine-launched cruise missiles in an effort to destroy Iran’s capacity to build nuclear weapons.

The ultimate consequences of this conflict may not become clear for years, and it has been widely reported that U.S. intelligence officials internally disagreed about whether Iran was close to building a nuclear bomb or how long that might take. One thing is clear, however: Those two weeks of war were neither the beginning nor the end of the long-running conflict between Israel and Iran, the two largest military powers in the Middle East.

In a photograph reportedly taken inside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “war room” on June 14, one English-language book is visible on his desk: “Target Tehran: How Mossad Is Using Sabotage, Cyberwarfare, Assassination — and Secret Diplomacy — to Realign the Middle East,” by the Israeli journalists Yonah Jeremy Bob and llan Evyatar. I recently spoke with Bob and Evyatar to discuss this conflict and its consequences, as well as the apparent evidence that their book influenced Netanyahu’s decision-making.

Both reporters stressed their credentials as independent journalists and said they were not pursuing a political agenda or speaking for the Israeli government. It’s fair to observe, however, that they have close ties to Israel’s security and intelligence establishment and both have worked for the Jerusalem Post, an English-language newspaper generally aligned with Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party. Their remarks clearly reflect that perspective. A reasonable comparison might be made with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, a highly influential columnist who is understood to express the views of the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

Bob is currently the Jerusalem Post’s senior military and intelligence analyst, and previously worked in the Israeli military’s international law division, at the Israeli mission to the U.N. and in Israel’s Justice Ministry. Evyatar is a former news editor and columnist at the Jerusalem Post, and the former editor in chief of its fortnightly magazine, the Jerusalem Report.

In this conversation, as in their book, Bob and Evyatar explore how Israel’s spy agency, the Mossad, has worked covertly to undermine Iran’s nuclear program and to reshape the region in Israel’s strategic interests. Israel’s recent campaign against Iran, as they tell the story, was the result of years of planning, strategy and espionage. They argue that Israel and the U.S. have done long-term damage to Iran’s nuclear program, although well short of the “obliteration” avowed by President Trump.

How do you see Israel’s security position now, following the strikes on Iran? 

Ilan Evyatar: Israel’s security position is stronger today than it was before the strikes. The successful destruction of multiple Iranian nuclear sites and key military assets has significantly set back Iran’s nuclear program, according to Israeli intelligence assessments. IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir said following the 12-day war that “Iran is no longer a nuclear threshold state.”

Israel demonstrated absolute intelligence superiority and operational reach, but it must remain vigilant. As long as the Islamic regime remains in power, its ideological commitment to Israel’s destruction will remain. If anything, the blows it has suffered — wounding, humiliating and exposing it — may have only hardened Tehran’s resolve to recover, rebuild and retaliate.

What about the situation in the larger region? Is the Middle East more or less stable after the strikes on Iran?

Evyatar: Regionally, we’re seeing a recalibration. What [the late Gen.] Qassem Soleimani envisioned as the “Ring of Fire” was rendered ineffective even before the Israeli-American strike. Hezbollah, which was basically built up over the years as a deterrent to prevent Israel from hitting Iran’s nuclear program, didn’t fire a shot in response after it was decapitated by Israel in September 2024. Arab governments, particularly in the Gulf, quietly welcomed the blow to Iran’s ambitions despite their public statements condemning Israel’s campaign. Events have opened up possibilities for an end to the Gaza war and for further countries to join the Abraham accords. It’s too early to tell, but we may see a very different Middle East in the not-too-distant future

Was this 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran inevitable? Or was it a calibrated choice?

Evyatar: We stated very clearly in our book that if the world didn’t force a new, stronger, verifiable nuclear deal on Iran in which it would agree to dismantle its military nuclear program and to zero enrichment on Iranian soil, then an Israeli strike was almost inevitable. When Israel obtained intelligence that work on weaponization was being accelerated and that Iran was planning on building up a ballistic missile arsenal capable of inflicting apocalyptic damage, there was no going back.

What role has Mossad played in Israel’s operations against Iran, and specifically against Iran’s nuclear program?

Evyatar: Mossad has been operating against the Iranian nuclear program from the moment Israel became aware that Tehran was seeking to acquire a bomb. It has been conducting covert operations on Iranian soil for some three decades, poisoning supply chains, sabotaging nuclear facilities and centrifuges used in the enrichment of uranium, carrying out cyberattacks and assassinating nuclear scientists involved in the program.

What is the domestic mood like in Israel after this most recent military conflict? What is Netanyahu’s position in public opinion?

Evyatar: Despite the enormous damage done by Iranian missile strikes on urban areas [in Israel], the strike has lifted the mood in Israel and boosted Netanyahu’s polling figures. Nevertheless, Netanyahu remains a deeply polarizing figure, and the shadow of Oct. 7 looms large. The polls show that he wouldn’t be able to form a coalition if elections were held today. Many Israelis won’t forgive the failures of Oct. 7, but if there is an end to the Gaza war that sees the hostages return home and Hamas gives up its weapons, and if he strikes further normalization deals with Arab countries, then the picture could change. Netanyahu has a reputation as a political magician, and the first rule of Israeli politics is never write him off.

Your book details a Mossad raid in which agents obtained thousands of secret documents about Iran’s nuclear program. It reads like something out of a Bond movie or another spy thriller. What role did the raid play in Israel’s decision to attack Iran?

Evyatar: That raid changed everything. Mossad agents infiltrated a Tehran warehouse, extracted tens of thousands of documents, and revealed that Iran had lied about its nuclear weapons ambitions. The archive gave Israel and the U.S. a clear roadmap of who was involved, what was built and where. It was the missing piece in the puzzle for future operations and also helped sway the position of Western powers and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, it was the roadmap that enabled Israel to so methodically hit the program, and to assassinate at least 14 nuclear scientists who were the core of the team working on weaponization.

What was it like seeing your book on Netanyahu’s desk, apparently as he issued the orders for Israel’s operations against Iran?

Evyatar: It was a strange moment — humbling and a little eerie. You write a book to tell a story, but suddenly that story becomes part of the very world it describes. Seeing “Target Tehran” on Netanyahu’s desk wasn’t about ego; it was about realizing that words, when grounded in truth, can shape real-world decisions. It was also a reminder of the responsibility that comes with reporting on national security.

Yonah Jeremy Bob: Pretty amazing. It means that the Israeli prime minister thought our book reflected significant aspects of what was playing out, such that it helped highlight the moment properly. It means all of our hard work digging into Israeli and American sources got very close to the truth, which is very hard to do with all of the moving pieces, agendas and variables. It also means we picked a lot of the right sources to listen to.

How did you develop and vet your sources?

Evyatar: Carefully and slowly. Everyone in the intelligence world has an agenda — some want to shape legacy, others want to settle scores. We built relationships over years, not months, and cross-checked every claim across multiple actors and institutions. Sometimes, the most useful insights came not from a bombshell revelation but a stray comment that, when placed alongside other pieces, completed the puzzle.

International opinion is all over the map in terms of how effective these attacks were in disabling Iran’s nuclear program. What is your assessment?

Evyatar: Tactically, the operation was a masterpiece. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure took decades to build and days to destroy. The program has been severely set back, Iran’s deterrence has been wiped out, Israel maintains freedom of the skies and can attack at will, and the Mossad is still able to work throughout Iran with almost absolute impunity. But there are still unknowns. The fate of Iran’s 60 percent enriched uranium is unclear; some of it may have survived or been removed ahead of time. There may be capabilities neither Israel nor the U.S. is aware of, but without a doubt Iran’s program is a lot worse off than it was on June 12, and Israel’s strategic standing is infinitely stronger.

Bob: With no political angle and based only on professional evaluations, I have been told by top IDF sources they are adamant — despite estimates by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, which may be a minority view in the U.S. intelligence community, and certain European intelligence agencies — that Iran’s nuclear program has, in fact, been pushed back by at least a couple years, maybe longer.

Their diagnosis of the issue is highly complex, but my understanding is that it is crucial. Nuclear science does not correspond to the convenient politics of one side or another’s view of the Israel-Iran war. It is also much more complicated than all of the media coverage of the issue implies.

Media coverage has centered around alleged reports of portions of enriched uranium at Fordow being moved by Iran before the war, or portions of one or more of the three main nuclear facilities being damaged. But according to top military officials, who will not at this stage reveal all they know about the locations of Iran’s enriched uranium, I was told that these are the wrong questions to be asking.

Top officials have told me for certain that they completely destroyed thousands of Iranian nuclear centrifuges. This would be the largest setback for any nuclear program in history.

The Israeli military told me they also estimate with a high level of probability, though not with 100 percent certainty, that it has substantially damaged or destroyed such a significant number of Iran’s centrifuge fleet that it could take Tehran multiple years to rebuild them.

There has been discussion about possible “regime change” in Iran as a desirable outcome for the U.S. and Israel. What is the possible role of diplomacy here in seeking a long-term solution that will bring lasting peace?

Evyatar: Israel’s strikes may have shattered key elements of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but they have not dismantled the regime’s core ideology. Tehran’s commitment to Israel’s destruction remains unchanged. That’s why Israel’s long-term objective can’t be limited to disrupting capabilities. It must focus on weakening the regime’s internal stability through economic pressure, covert action and psychological warfare aimed at eroding the leadership’s confidence and sowing divisions within.

Israel must create sustained pressure that forces the regime to retreat inward, abandon its regional ambitions, and ultimately face a legitimacy crisis from within. Diplomacy remains a tool — but only if backed by real leverage that will force Iran to accept a Libya-style deal that completely dismantles its nuclear program and places severe restrictions on ballistic missiles. As long as this regime survives in its current form, the threat to Israel will persist.