One of the key issues revealed in the United States–Israel attack on Iran, and one that requires close attention, is the method by which the strike was carried out and the consequences it produced, particularly as it resulted in the deaths of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and numerous high-ranking Iranian officials. This attack is highly striking in that it reflects the level of technological advancement reached in the context of modern warfare.
This was not merely a target-focused assassination; rather, it represents a new model of warfare in which cyber tools and artificial intelligence technologies were used with significant effectiveness. According to a statement by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, United States Cyber Command and United States Space Command conducted coordinated cyber operations targeting Iran’s communication channels, disrupting its entire communication and sensor networks and thereby disabling the Iranian security units’ ability to see, detect, and respond.
Although the full details are not entirely clear, it is understood that technologies such as Global Positioning System and Starlink were used during the course of the operation. At the same time, Iran appears to have been subjected to efforts aimed at blocking its satellite networks and disrupting signals through jamming systems. Reports also indicate that Israel infiltrated nearly all traffic cameras in Tehran prior to the military operation, obtaining real-time imagery.
In addition to intelligence gathered on the ground by the Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad, it has also emerged in the public domain that cyber and electronic warfare technologies were employed, and that data obtained through artificial intelligence tools were analyzed via algorithms and used as the basis for conducting the operation. This indicates that what we are facing is a deeply integrated and layered new model of warfare.
In this war, speed and precision were achieved on the basis of synchronizing intelligence and integrating artificial intelligence algorithms. As a result of combining these capabilities, striking 800 targets simultaneously has created a new threshold on the battlefield. It can be said that artificial intelligence was actively used across all stages of warfare, from command and control to decision support, from electronic and cyber warfare to missile defense systems, as well as in unmanned aerial, land, and naval vehicles, marking a first in this regard.
In scenarios that exceed human cognitive capacity or require the rapid analysis of large and complex data sets, artificial intelligence functions as the primary element. In this new form of warfare, described in the literature as “hyperwar,” the cycle of decision-making and execution can take place within milliseconds. The rapid analysis of data related to striking 800 targets simultaneously, the swift decision-making, and the immediate evaluation of outcomes elevate warfare to an entirely different level. In this sense, it is necessary to underline that artificial intelligence has pushed warfare beyond the limits of human perception and response capacity.
Iran’s resistance capacity and possible scenarios
Another point that emerges is that the Iranian state appears to have drawn certain lessons, in its own way, from the 12-day war of June 2025. By spreading the war both militarily and politically across time and terrain, it is attempting to avoid defeat and disintegration, even while sustaining heavy damage, by targeting the opponent’s weak points.
They stated that they had established 31 separate command centers, which they described as a “mosaic defense,” and that these centers operate independently of one another. In the event of the collapse of a central authority or any command unit, they announced that the remaining commands would act locally to sustain resistance, and that they had been organized in advance on this basis. Although there is no definitive information regarding their internal situation, their responses so far indicate that this structure has yielded results to a certain extent.
Moreover, considering the techniques used, the accuracy rate, and the breadth of targets, it appears that Iran has received certain reinforcements from China and Russia, including missile support. While this war carries an existential character for Iran, it also objectively functions as a forward front for China and Russia. Looking at the course of the war, although the current situation falls short of Iran’s expectations, it is evident that it has been strengthened to a certain degree through external support.
At present, although Iran’s airspace is largely under the control of United States–Israel air power, Iran’s ability to shoot down Hermes, Heron, and MQ-9 type unmanned aerial vehicles belonging to the United States and Israel suggests that its air defense systems are still capable of responding to a certain extent.
Despite losing its war command structure along with the individual regarded as its “stronghold,” and despite suffering heavy destruction across its air, naval, and land forces, Iran has achieved certain symbolic successes. Among these are strikes on the Central Intelligence Agency station and the United States embassy in Riyadh, the radar system in the United Arab Emirates, the over-the-horizon radar in Qatar, and radar systems in Kuwait and Jordan. These radar systems were designed to detect missile launches, provide early warning, and operate in integration with regional high-altitude air defense and Patriot systems. In this sense, it can be said that these strikes have significantly blinded opposing forces.
It is understood that Iran had anticipated that its chain of command might be disrupted and that communication breakdowns could occur, and had prepared itself accordingly, making plans on this basis. Within this framework, it organized itself across 31 locations as localized command structures within provincial administrations.
Although this organizational model and the delegation of initiative to local groups may provide a short-term solution, the prolongation of the war creates a situation prone to slipping out of control. The absence of a unified strategic picture in terms of war objectives may lead to miscalculations, an inability to concentrate force where needed, and weaknesses in coordination and command.
Iran’s communication networks remain vulnerable to cyberattacks such as signal jamming and disruption. A significant portion of its senior commanders has been eliminated. With the concentration of attack waves on the forces and infrastructure sustaining the regime’s security architecture, a weakening of military capacity is an expected outcome.
This may also lead to the weakening of the regime’s internal security mechanisms and create a vacuum of authority within Iran. In such a scenario, even limited ground operations could generate psychological attrition within Iran’s security apparatus and potentially trigger uprisings among certain groups inside the country.
Despite experiencing numerous internal weaknesses and challenges, Iran is not a fragile state that will collapse easily. With a population of 90 million, deep social roots, and considerable asymmetric capabilities, it has historically proven itself to be a developed regional actor capable of producing unexpected moves over time.
It is expected that Iran will continue to act on the basis of waging a strategic war of attrition. Iran’s traditional area of expertise lies in asymmetric retaliation waves, regional targeting, and its capacity to impose costs on its adversaries. In this sense, the Iranian state may endure; however, there is also the possibility that it could evolve into a more fragile political structure in the long term.
When the positions of the actors, their objectives, and the potential impact they can generate are evaluated, it is widely understood that a civil war process that could extend over years may become inevitable. In its current form, it appears that the fate of the war will be determined by struggles in the straits and on land.
Given that this war has now evolved into a far more structural, multi-front, and multi-layered conflict, it has surpassed the scale of a regional war. Considering its impact on energy markets, the global economy, and great power competition, it is evident that the number of actors involved, both openly and covertly, will increase, potentially signaling broader transformations within the international system.
In summary, while the Iran war represents far more than the fate of a single country, it also reveals an emerging architecture regarding how a new world order may be shaped.
The ultimate objective of the United States and Israel is clear. Accordingly, the aim is to change the regime in Iran and to construct a new structure that will operate in full alignment with them. Opening Iran, home to one of the world’s largest oil reserves, to the markets of United States and Israeli companies, as well as integrating it into new trade routes, energy corridors, and supply chains developed by these powers, stands among the primary objectives.
Conclusion
Neither the United States and Israel initiated this war for democracy, freedom, and justice, nor is Iran a defender of these values. On the contrary, both sides impose war, death, torture, hunger, and oppression on peoples. Therefore, it is similar mindsets that are clashing. In a war where the sides are not fundamentally different from one another, taking sides from the perspective of the peoples would be a deeply misguided choice.
In essence, what is unfolding in the region is a struggle for hegemony. Until now, Iranian and Turkish hegemony prevailed; it is now evident that this is being challenged. In its place, there is an attempt to position Israel as a hegemonic power, while Iran resists this shift. This war serves no one except capital circles, particularly those tied to arms and technology industries.
Iran’s resistance is not aimed at building a free and democratic society; rather, it seeks to preserve and sustain its own dictatorship. Over its 47-year history, the Iranian clerical regime has subjected the mosaic social fabric of the Middle East to massacres, executions, torture, and exile, through the proxy forces it has built in the region and its construction of a nation-state based on religious chauvinism. In consolidating its system, it fell into a state of profound misjudgment.
For nearly half a century, under the banner of Shiite ideology, the regime in Iran has constructed a complex system through corruption and the ruthless use of violence when necessary. It came to perceive itself as untouchable and unsolvable. Relying on proxy forces, a million-strong military, the coercive Basij force within society, as well as intelligence, missile, and drone technologies, it built a structure that looks down upon its own people. Abandoning change, democratization, and reform, it has responded to even the smallest demands for rights with arrests, house detention, prolonged imprisonment, and executions.
Through execution practices referred to by our people as “sêdare,” it sought to suppress the peoples within, ethnic groups, and those demanding democracy, believing it could sustain its existence indefinitely. It became intoxicated with power, and continues to be so. As a result of this intoxication, even the visibility of a single strand of a woman’s hair has been met with torture and killing.
The clerical regime, which initially built itself with the goal of freedom, has come to see itself through a distorted lens and transformed into a system of oppression and torture. For this reason, the system had long been decaying from within. It has become a structure identified with lies, corruption, degeneration, executions, and torture. Because of these characteristics and practices, apart from a limited segment gathered around it, Iranian society has lost its sense of belonging to this system, has become alienated, and has begun to seek a way out.
The dramatic trajectory of the Iranian regime has deepened further through its imposition of a unitary and religious-sectarian structure. By suppressing native languages, cultures, ethnic identities, and beliefs, and imposing a policy of one language, one state, one nation, and one leader, it has othered and alienated the peoples. Once again, the example of Iran demonstrates that regimes which fail to respond to their own people’s demands for democratization and freedom do not have a bright future.
Over the past month, the case of Iran has once again shown that producing weapons, organizing proxy forces, manipulating perceptions to exploit people’s beliefs, and creating artificial intelligence-generated heroic imagery or animated war narratives do not translate into real-world success. The United States–Israel attack took place at a time when the Iranian clerical regime was already experiencing serious internal fragilities. Therefore, although those who carried out the attack may have had different calculations, the conditions that made it possible were, to a large extent, created by the regime itself.
On the approach to a solution
It is highly likely that the war in Iran will spread over a long period and across a wide terrain. It is also clear that the statement by the Iranian presidency after the outbreak of the war, “we can resolve our internal problems through discussion”, stands in contradiction to the realities on the ground and the line it defends.
It is understood from the practices during the recent war that the Iranian regime does not have a tendency toward transformation and democratization from within; on the contrary, it seeks to preserve the existing regional status quo and, by turning further inward, has intensified pressure on ethnic groups and secular segments demanding democracy, justice, and freedom.
The Iranian regime had already come under the control of a narrow elite and become alienated from its own society. Based on this reality, it can be said that if the regime emerges from the war without fragmentation, it is likely, due to its structural codes, to shift toward a more nationalist line, spread terror, attempt to consolidate its authority through executions, and seek to suppress society. At the same time, it can be expected to adopt a more aggressive and repressive stance in foreign policy.
It is also evident that no positive outcome for peoples or for freedoms should be expected from the United States–Israel attacks on Iran. Donald Trump’s statement, “Democracy means nothing to me,” along with approaches that give a green light to monarchy, reveal what kind of system these powers envision for peoples.
Accordingly, these powers will primarily seek to dismantle the Iranian regime and render it dependent on themselves. If they are unable to fully dismantle it, it is also likely that they will tolerate the preservation of certain privileges within the regime. In exchange for the continuation of the system, they may, at times, approve the existence of a weakened Iran tied to them.
In both scenarios, it is clear that such intervention will not benefit the Iranian people; it will not bring democracy, freedom, or justice, but rather lead to hunger, poverty, oppression, displacement, and new deaths. In the midst of such a war, what should ethnic groups, secular and democratic forces, leftist and socialist segments, and women in Iran, indeed all those seeking equality, freedom, and justice, do? Previous experiences clearly show that neither of the warring sides will provide these values; on the contrary, they will deepen the crisis. Therefore, one should not take sides in this war.
In a war shaped between global hegemony and regional statism, peoples are not without alternatives.
Iranian revolutionaries, socialists, and peoples who base themselves on the line of the democratic nation, which is in the interest of the peoples, can turn this war into an opportunity and benefit from it. It is clear that no external force will come as a savior, nor will global hegemony provide such a solution. Against the deadlock of both lines, if the democratic nation perspective is adopted, it becomes evident that peoples can have a say over their own fate by relying on their own self-organization and culture of solidarity.
Starting with the Kurdish people, the most dynamic force in the region, along with the peoples of Iran, women, revolutionary dynamics, and all segments demanding democracy, freedom, and justice, organizing, coming together, and forming alliances on the basis of the third line developed by Abdullah Öcalan may enable them to make use of the openings and opportunities that will emerge within this period of chaos.
The alliance formed by six parties in Eastern Kurdistan (Rojhilatê Kurdistan) is an important step. There are forces that seek to drag Kurds and the peoples of the region into war and conflict. Becoming a party to this war is certainly not in the interest of Kurds or the peoples of the region. Therefore, starting with the Kurdish people and their organizations, one of the most organized forces in the region, as well as all peoples of Iran and the Middle East, they can develop policies aligned with their own interests and find a way out of this chaos in favor of the peoples.
The existing system in Iran is undergoing a process of rupture, and this rupture appears inevitable. This creates the ground for a transformation that could begin in Eastern Kurdistan and spread across Iran and ultimately throughout the Middle East. On this basis, if the alliance of organizations in Eastern Kurdistan acts with this awareness of reality and responsibility and carries out organizational work with the goal of a “Democratic Iran–Free Kurdistan,” it may achieve success.
In the face of possible attacks, acting with a consciousness of self-defense and establishing relations with all opposition segments, particularly the peoples, belief groups, and especially women in Iran, may make it possible for them to lead a peoples’ alliance and a potential revolutionary process.
Leave a Reply