Iran Loses Deterrence After Inability to Respond to November Suleimani and Damascus Embassy Bombings

Overview of the Midnight Assault on Iran

In a decisive and heavily coordinated operation, Israeli fighter jets, supported by Mossad and elite special operations units, launched a significant attack targeting Iran at midnight. The operation involved the deployment of approximately 200 combat aircraft, which unleashed over 330 munitions aimed at multiple strategic sites across Iran.

During the assault, Iran suffered the loss of several key figures, including Chief of Staff Muhammad Bagheri, Revolutionary Guards Commander Hossein Salami, and at least six prominent nuclear physicists. The attack significantly damaged Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, including reactors, uranium enrichment facilities, missile launchers, and missile production plants. Reports indicate that Iraqi airspace was utilized for this complex operation, underscoring the regional and logistical depth of the strike.

Iran’s Response and Regional Tensions

Following the attack, Iran announced its firm stance to cease participation in ongoing nuclear negotiations, particularly in Oman, and vowed to retaliate against Israel’s aggression. The Iranian government emphasized that the attack marked a pivotal escalation in regional hostilities.

U.S. President Donald Trump publicly clarified that the United States did not partake in the operation. In his statement, he emphasized Iran’s need to reach a deal, warning that subsequent Israeli strikes would be far more destructive. "Iran now has to make a deal. The planned subsequent attacks will be much more destructive. The world's deadliest bombs are made in the US, and Israel has a very large stock of these bombs. Make a deal immediately."

Despite earlier reports suggesting Trump’s opposition, Axios, a well-connected news outlet, revealed that in private meetings with Israeli officials, Trump had given his tacit approval for the attacks. Israeli officials expressed that Trump’s public statements did not reflect his private stance, asserting, "Trump only appeared to oppose attacking Iran in public statements. However, in bilateral contacts and behind closed doors, Trump clearly gave the green light to Israel."

Preparation and Intelligence Operations

Israel’s extensive preparations spanned at least eight months, involving Mossad agents and Israeli special forces conducting sabotage missions targeting Iran’s missile systems, air defense radars, and command centers. These covert activities aimed to weaken Iran’s immediate response capabilities and set the stage for the aerial assault.

Expert Perspectives: Dr. Mehmet Akif Koç’s Analysis

In discussions with Iran and Middle East analyst Dr. Mehmet Akif Koç, insights were shared on the strategic implications of the attack, regional dynamics, and Iran’s possible future actions. He highlighted that the post-October 7, 2023 geopolitical landscape significantly altered the regional balance, enabling Israel to conduct more aggressive operations against Iran.

"Due to the conjuncture that emerged after October 7, 2023, Israel was able to strike Iran," he explained. Dr. Koç emphasized that prior to this date, Iran’s influence was much more robust, with control over key capitals like Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad, and Sana’a, as well as significant sway in Gaza. The regional scenario has shifted dramatically, reducing Iran’s dominance and emboldening Israeli military actions.

Iran’s Diminished Deterrence and Strategic Limitations

Koç pointed out that Iran’s failure to respond effectively to high-profile assassinations, such as the killing of Qasem Soleimani and the bombing of its embassy in Syria, has eroded its deterrence. He noted, "Iran lost its deterrence in two critical incidents—once with Soleimani’s assassination in January 2020, and again with the attack on its Syrian embassy and the killing of six IRGC generals in June 2023." This perceived weakness has encouraged Israel to intensify its strikes, knowing Iran’s retaliatory capacity is limited.

He further assessed Iran’s strategic options, including potential nuclear escalation akin to North Korea’s model, regional confrontations, or renewed diplomatic negotiations. However, he warned that any blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would be short-lived due to the presence of U.S. naval forces, and Iran’s capacity for long-term aggression remains constrained.

Iran’s Possible Future Strategies

According to Koç, Iran might consider adopting a North Korea-like stance—abandoning diplomatic negotiations and pursuing clandestine nuclear weapons development, which could drastically alter regional power dynamics. Alternatively, Iran could escalate proxy conflicts in Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen, though he views these as less effective and potentially self-destructive.

He also highlighted the possibility of Iran opting for diplomatic engagement, provided the US and other global powers are willing to negotiate under acceptable terms. Koç stressed that the current US-imposed conditions are viewed as unacceptable by Iran and many other nations, which complicates diplomatic efforts.

Regime Stability and Prospects for Change in Iran

Discussing the likelihood of regime change, Koç emphasized that Iran’s society remains largely conservative. He argued that the revolution’s core is deeply rooted in traditional values, and any internal upheaval would more likely originate from peripheral ethnic or regional minority groups rather than a secular uprising. He stated, "A secular revolution is unlikely; Iran’s society is predominantly conservative, and any upheaval would probably come from peripheral regions like Balochistan or Kurdistan, not from a nationwide movement."

He dismissed the possibility of land invasion as impractical due to Iran’s vast territory and the high costs involved, making regime change through military occupation unlikely. Instead, internal destabilization via regional unrest or elite power struggles within the Revolutionary Guards might weaken Iran’s grip but would not necessarily lead to a regime fall.

Turkey’s Regional Strategy and Balance of Power

Koç explained Turkey’s approach as one of maintaining strategic equilibrium among Israel, Iran, and the Gulf countries. He stated, "Turkey prefers these three actors to balance each other, preventing any single power from dominating the region." He noted that Turkey’s diplomatic rhetoric often does not translate into tangible shifts on the ground but aims to keep regional tensions in check by encouraging a balance of influence. The goal is to prevent either Iran or Israel from becoming excessively dominant, thereby stabilizing the broader Middle Eastern landscape.

Conclusion

This comprehensive analysis underscores the complex interplay of military, diplomatic, and regional factors influencing the recent Israeli strikes on Iran. The evolving regional dynamics, Iran’s strategic limitations, and Turkey’s balancing act all contribute to a fragile yet pivotal moment in Middle Eastern geopolitics.