Iranians have lit the flame of protest many times in recent years, but ultimately it has been smothered before becoming self-sustaining. The Iranian government’s brutality, and internal Iranian dynamics, explain most of why these demonstrations have not led to political change. Yet, for Americans, it’s critical we understand the role of U.S. policy in shaping the environment of protest movements and reinforcing and intensifying the harsh security atmosphere inside Iran.

With so much on the line, it is important to recognize a fallacy that lies at the heart of the conversation on U.S. policy toward Iran: the claim that the U.S. has erred by doing too little on Iran. While calls for the United States to “do more” may be understandable in light of the Iranian government’s increasing brutality and the continued frustrations of Iranians hoping for change, they also get the situation wrong. To the contrary, the United States has often erred by doing far too much of the wrong thing, stacking the deck against the people of Iran by crushing them with far-reaching sanctions and continually threatening war.

The notion the U.S. must “do more” on Iran – promoted for decades by groups like AIPAC and the Israel lobby, as well as by exile opposition groups like the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) and monarchists promoting sanctions and interventionist pressure policies – has been fixated on coercion and punitive policies, not efforts to actually support ordinary Iranians. This logic has naturally led to a situation where the American toolkit for coercing the Islamic Republic has been all but exhausted.

The U.S. has cut off Iran from American and international markets, has barred foreign companies that do business with the United States from trading with Iran, and cut off Iran’s oil revenues which are frozen in bank accounts abroad. U.S. sanctions have inadvertently aided the Islamic Republic’s repression, including in disconnecting Iranians from the internet, and efforts by policymakers to update these policies have often been too little, too late. The U.S. briefly pursued detente and relieving sanctions via a multilateral nuclear agreement, only to violate the accord and pursue “maximum pressure” on Iran which has continued for more than seven years. The U.S. enabled Israel to decimate Iran’s “axis of resistance” and launch strikes inside the country that killed much of Iran’s military leadership along with hundreds of civilians. And the U.S. itself bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities in June. Yet, the regime endures and the calls from some of the most prominent voices in the Iranian exile community for the U.S. to “do something” have begun to coalesce and demand the final, predictable option in the toolkit – U.S. military action aimed at changing the regime.

Stripped from any pretense of improving the livelihood of its people, both by external design and its own choices, the Islamic Republic now relies almost entirely on the solid core underpinning any state: a monopoly on the use of force. Now thousands of Iranians who were attempting to voice their demands and escape their desperate circumstances have been victimized by the state, whereas past cycles left dozens or hundreds dead in the state’s repression.

What comes next is an important question. Those arguing that the U.S. must now take the final step and bomb Iran appear to be mistaking the Iranian government’s isolation and lack of options for fragility. A cornered predator is not without options - it will attack viciously if it sees no other alternative.

Strikes on Iran would be highly unlikely to trigger a return of a mass movement to the streets and the precipitous collapse of a corrupt and hollow structure, as some have portrayed. Iran’s power structure is deeply embedded, and there has been no sign of defections in Iran’s military or political leadership. As a result, Iran would lash out with its missiles and other military capabilities if attacked, calculating that overwhelming force is the last card that can be played to prevent a repeat of the fate that befell similar isolated regimes like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya. As much as President Trump may hope that Iran strikes would be decisive, it is far more likely to be bloody and chaotic with significant losses on the American side — not to mention countless innocent Iranian civilians.

The deck is stacked against democracy flourishing once the smoke from bombing clears. The strongest power center in the Islamic Republic remains its military, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has been loyal to the Supreme Leader. The IRGC or a splinter of it would be in the most advantageous position to take over in any power vacuum following a regime decapitation strike. In addition to the risks of one authoritarian state being replaced by another, the state itself could fracture as competing factions vie for control or seek to break away from the central state, leading to a bloody civil war.

Some, knowing all the risks of further societal degradation and destruction that war brings, may still calculate that the brutality of the Islamic Republic demands nothing else but to push forward and hope that U.S. bombs will trigger a fundamental and brighter change. But if President Trump truly wanted to do right by American interests and the Iranian people, he would cease all threats of military intervention, declaring clearly that Iran’s future must be led by Iranians themselves. Instead of pursuing crushing sanctions forcing ordinary Iranians into desperate circumstances, Trump could direct the Treasury Department to rework sanctions to target pressure squarely on Iranian officials responsible for crimes against Iran’s people while sparing the general population and economy as a whole. At the same time, he could ensure there is full support and funding for credible independent investigations recently authorized by the United Nations to pursue real accountability. Under this scenario, the Islamic Republic would be denied a boogeyman to rally its supporters against and exploit to justify its brutality. The Iranian people would have an economic reprieve and be better able to build civil society networks necessary for any democratic transition and to sustain demonstrations and activism demanding political change. Instead, the only tools that appear to be on the table are the further weakening of Iranian society relative to the government through economic immiseration, or a foreign military intervention.

In international politics, there are no guarantees. Yet a path that reduces external pressure on ordinary Iranians and creates conditions conducive for the Iranian people to sustain a movement for change is the best way to enable rather than hamstring organic efforts in Iran to be able to stand up to the anachronistic and increasingly brutal system that rules over them. It also represents a path away from the vortex of violence and chaos that is enveloping Iran and risks producing regional war, state collapse and civil war.

If we continue on the same course, either the flame of Iranian democracy will continue to be smothered, or a war will threaten everything in an explosion of violence. A different way is still possible, if we allow the Iranian people to breathe.

Trump Did Leader Change without Regime Change for Colonial Aims

Trump has not pretended to be motivated by altruistic aims of spreading human rights and democracy in Venezuela. Rather, what he appears to be pursuing is a colonial appropriation similar to the raw deal that allowed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to exploit Iran’s oil reserves in the first half of the 20th century. Former Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq rallied the Iranian people against the appropriation of the nation’s wealth and nationalized Iran’s oil industry. However, Mossadeq was then ousted in a 1953 CIA coup that replaced a budding democracy with the autocratic rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Now, the son of the Shah, Reza Pahlavi, has been seeking to position himself as the leader of the Iranian opposition from exile in the United States, either to oversee a “transition” process to form a new government or to head a restored monarchy. Pahlavi has welcomed the ouster of Maduro and, like his father, undoubtedly hopes for American intervention to depose the current Iranian government.

Many Venezuelan opposition leaders both in and outside the country hoped for military intervention to depose not just Nicolas Maduro but the entire ruling structure underneath him, allowing for a complete transition to democracy. That’s not what has happened. The Maduro regime is still there, just without Maduro. While details remain unclear, it seems quite possible that an agreement was struck with figures underneath him to hand over Maduro to save the rest of the government. Venezuelan air defenses appeared largely inactive in the surprise raid, allowing for U.S. forces to enter the country largely unopposed, despite the American military buildup over recent months and threats of war which should have ensured a high state of alert.

Many expected Trump to anoint a leader from the opposition after the raid, though this did not happen. María Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize winner in December who fled the country and lauded President Trump and his pressure campaign on the country - and who has connected with Iranian diaspora figures like Pahlavi who are pro-intervention in Iran - was pointedly dismissed as a contender. “I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader,” Trump said Saturday. “She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country. She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect to be the leader.”

Instead, Trump has insisted that the U.S. will “run” the country and that U.S. oil companies will be given unfettered access to Venezuelan oil, under the threat of further military force. Maduro’s former Vice President, acting President Delcy Rodriguez, is now the subject of Trump’s overt colonial demands. Trump is asking for “total access” for U.S. oil companies to go in and rebuild infrastructure allowing for exploitation of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. If Rodriguez doesn’t submit, it appears that the Trump administration is willing to bombard the country and its leaders until it gets what it wants: the right to total exploitation.

The plan is still half baked and it is unclear what the full consequences Trump has set in motion will be. Yet it smacks far more of neocolonialism than neoconservativism. If it is a plan that could be replicated toward Iran, buyer beware.

Spheres of Influence and Who Runs the Middle East

President Trump was triumphant in his press conference following the capture of Maduro, and even touted the revival and supercharging of the old “Monroe Doctrine,” which viewed external intervention in the Western Hemisphere from other powers as a hostile act against core U.S. interests. The doctrine’s interpretation led to numerous interventions in Central and South America, including to topple various leaders deemed against American interests. Trump dubbed the apparent revival and intensification of this doctrine under his watch as the “Donroe” Doctrine.

Along with this new interventionist streak in Latin America came a plethora of potential targets for who should be on notice, largely confined to the Western Hemisphere. Speculation has been rife that Trump will not mind similar interventions from other great powers, like Russia and China, dictating terms and choosing leaders in countries near their own borders that have been sovereign in recent memory.

But with this possible shift to Latin America, it is not entirely clear that President Trump is ready to abandon the Middle East. Instead, Trump appears to have acted in lockstep to prop up Israel as a regional hegemon of the Middle East. Here, his recent suggestions that the U.S. could intervene with Israel to knock out Iran’s missile program or retaliate if protesters are killed are instructive. Trump appears to be following Netanyahu’s lead, open to striking Iran down again to ensure it can never be a threat to Israel.

This is inauspicious for anyone who thinks the governments of the Middle East should move toward peace and stability, or wants Iran to transform into a stable and secure democracy. Israeli hegemony, propped up and backed by the U.S., will mean the elimination of any potential rival. Under such a system, Iran - with its population of more than 90 million, significant resources and human capital and indigenous military capabilities - will not be allowed to transition from an isolated authoritarian government to a stable and capable regional power. Iran would be bombed and fractured so long as is necessary to ensure no rival can reemerge – and that, like Venezuela, its resources can be plundered.

As protests erupt across Iran in response to economic collapse and broken promises of reform, a familiar playbook is unfolding: Israeli government officials and their allies are cynically co-opting the legitimate grievances of ordinary Iranians to advance their own agenda of militarism and outside-led regime change. Their agenda is to bring more war, more suffering, and more instability to the very people they claim to champion.

This post will explore key factors fueling the current protests inside Iran, then expose how some of the war lobby forces are carrying forward the playbook by cynically exploiting Iranian suffering in this moment for personal gain.

As Iranian Americans with family and loved ones in Iran, we stand in solidarity with the Iranian people peacefully asserting their fundamental rights in the face of repression, and condemn security forces’ violent crackdown on peaceful public assembly. The Iranian government is guilty of extensive human rights abuses against the Iranian people. As a diaspora of Iranians in the United States, it is also increasingly documented that the majority of Iranian Americans also oppose decades of sanctions by our own U.S. government that have worsened economic conditions for ordinary Iranians—and Iranian activists have unequivocally rejected attempts by Israel or any other outside actors to exploit the Iranian people’s legitimate grievances as justification for more war and civilian suffering.

We’ve seen the war lobby playbook co-opt everyday people’s suffering before to justify war in the name of “human rights”, “liberation”, and “regional security”. President George W. Bush’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan that have bogged America down in over a generation of wars in the region. Israel’s ongoing genocidal campaign against the people of Gaza, which they hope to expand outward into a new arena by waging war on Iran.

Above all, the people of Iran deserve a free, fair and effective government on their terms. Bombs falling on Tehran promising change will only result in decades more of instability and bloodshed. We stand with the people of Iran fighting for change, and reject imperialism and violence in their name.

So What’s Actually Happening?

To understand the current moment, we need to look beyond sensational headlines and examine the timeline of recent events inside Iran. Five interconnected factors, among others, seem to have driven Iranians into the streets:

Post-War Disappointment:

Following the 12 day Israel-U.S.-Iran War in June. There was a brief sense of national unity and widespread expectation that the government might respond with meaningful domestic reforms: releasing political prisoners, easing social restrictions, reopening civic space, or offering broader amnesty to members of the diaspora. Instead, the regime reverted to “factory settings” by arresting activists like Narges Mohammadi and the organizers of a peaceful women-led running event. This perceived return to business as usual generated deep disappointment and disillusionment among a population that had rallied during external threat.

The Gasoline Price Increase:

On December 13, Iran raised fuel prices for the first time since 2019—a highly sensitive move given the traumatic memory of the 2019 “Bloody November” protests. For many Iranians, the price hike wasn’t just an economic shock but an emotional reminder of that earlier period of brutal repression.

The Draft National Budget:

On December 23, President Pezeshkian submitted the draft budget for Iranian fiscal year 1405 (beginning March 2026). The proposed 20% public-sector wage increase has drawn criticism from economists and ordinary people alike, as it falls far below inflation levels widely estimated around 50% —reinforcing expectations of further economic hardship in the coming year.

The Taraneh Alidoosti Documentary:

On December 24, BBC Persian aired a documentary on actress Taraneh Alidoosti, highlighting her support for the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement and her defiance of compulsory hijab laws. The film circulated widely across Persian-language social platforms and revived collective memory of the 2022-2023 protest movement, reinforcing the sense that the social and political grievances behind it remain unresolved.

Currency Collapse:

On December 26, the rial hit a record low trading at roughly 1.45 million rials to the U.S. dollar in Tehran. The sharp depreciation fueled trader demonstrations in Tehran and intensified public anxiety about economic stability in multiple cities including Hamedan, Malard, Qeshm, and Tabriz.

Cue the Israeli Co-Opting

Into this complex domestic crisis steps the Israeli government and its echo chamber—not to support Iranian people, but to weaponize their suffering. Let’s examine some of the most egregious, shameless co-opting of these legitimate protests.

Former Israeli Prime Minister and current Israeli President Naftali Bennett released a video urging Iranians to “rise up,” claiming “the free world stands with you.” This is the same government that was happy to bomb Iranian civilians with impunity during the 12-day war.

Israeli Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology Gila Gamliel, an ally of monarchist figure Reza Pahlavi, weighed in with her own messages of “support.”

Even more dystopian: Mossad tweeting in Persian to Iranian protesters—Israel’s intelligence agency trying to position itself as champion of Iranian freedom.

The war lobby in Washington
Here in the United States, the pro-war agenda is being advanced through familiar channels. Congressman Brad Sherman, Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East, has promoted resolutions supporting outside-led regime change efforts, echoing monarchist and MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq) talking points. AIPAC has amplified these messages retweeting support for external intervention masked as solidarity.

Let’s be clear about what this is: Israel and its allies are not concerned with Iranian welfare. They have actively championed the “maximum pressure” sanctions policy that has devastated Iran’s economy—sanctions that have hurt ordinary Iranians far more than the government they’re supposedly designed to pressure. They supported and participated in illegal and unprovoked military strikes on Iran. Now they want to use Iranian suffering as justification for more of the same.

Two Hands Around Iranian Necks

The Iranian people are being strangled by two hands: their own government’s mismanagement, repression, and economic incompetence on one side—and decades of crippling U.S. sanctions and Israeli military aggression on the other. Both share responsibility for the current crisis. Both deserve condemnation.

What Iranians need is not more outside interference from governments with their own geopolitical axes to grind. They need relief from sanctions that make medicine and basic goods scarce. They need a government that prioritizes their wellbeing over militarism and ideological rigidity. They need space to organize, protest, and demand change without tear gas and arrests—and without foreign powers using their struggle as a pretext for intervention.

As Iranian Americans, we know our community and our families deserve better than this false choice between domestic repression and foreign-backed regime change. True solidarity with the Iranian people means supporting their right to determine their own future—free from both internal authoritarianism and external manipulation.

Ultimately, people of all backgrounds who claim to stand with Iranians must speak up against the Israeli government and its allies’ plans for war. Rather than help Iranians, Israeli co-option of these legitimate protests validates the Islamic Republic’s foreign-plot narratives, makes repression easier, and discourages, instead of encouraging, broader participation.

If they truly cared about Iranian lives, they wouldn’t have bombed Iranian civilians, and they wouldn’t continue pushing for policies that immiserate ordinary Iranians.

The Iranian people’s struggle for dignity, economic justice, and freedom is their own. It deserves self-aware solidarity from the diaspora that asserts their self-determination—not Western “salvation” in the form of more bombs on Tehran

.

Now, not six months later, multiple news reports have indicated that Netanyahu is coming to the U.S. in around a week to ask President Trump to join in a reopening of the war on Iran. As reported by NBC, “Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are expected to meet later this month in Florida at the president’s Mar-a-Lago estate. At that meeting, the sources said, Netanyahu is expected to make the case to Trump that Iran’s expansion of its ballistic missile program poses a threat that could necessitate swift action.”

Quite the Christmas present for President Trump and the American people: we get to wage a new, open-ended round of war for Netanyahu that may be much bloodier than the prelude in June, all because Netanyahu’s first war didn’t deliver lasting security gains.

Netanyahu has been previewing this push to reopen the war for months, vowing that this is the year to wipe out the Iranian axis and declaring that Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile - which survived, but may have been buried by the June strikes - must be eliminated. While the risk of another Iran war has not been discussed much in the American press, it has been a major topic of conversation for Israeli commentators, and the question is less “if” but “when.” Iranian leaders, caught flat-footed in the June war, have likewise prioritized readiness and vowed a punishing response.

The shift in focus from the nuclear program to missiles is worthy of note. The potential weaponization of Iran’s nuclear program has been a focus of American Presidents for decades, and has been treated as a major threat to American security. Yet, with Iran’s declared nuclear facilities lying in rubble, it’s hard to sell a new war designed to make the rubble bounce. So, Netanyahu is shifting from a potential threat to American security to one that is much less potent. Iran’s conventional missiles can, indeed, do damage to American soldiers, bases and infrastructure in the region. Yet Iran can’t come close to striking the American homeland with its current missile inventory. The missiles are primarily a deterrent, and one aimed at aggressors in the region who might do Iran harm, like Israel.

If Netanyahu gets his wish and brings the United States into the war over not a nuclear threat, but a conventional one largely deterring Israel, he will have rewritten the American baseline for Iran policy in fundamental ways. There is no reason to expect Netanyahu to stop demanding more hits of war, subsidized and led by the Americans, unless and until he receives a hard no or faces consequences for his reckless warmongering. This is a path that leads directly to a full American invasion and occupation of Iran to eliminate the current Iranian government, paid for with American blood and treasure.

President Trump can still put American interests first. Iran was careful to calibrate its response in June to try to avoid a full U.S. entry into the war. That would be extremely unlikely to be repeated if Iran watches Netanyahu once again maneuver the U.S. into a new round of war with Iran. The missiles that pounded Israeli cities throughout the war, some of which were shot down by vital American interceptors, could instead be targeted at U.S. bases, naval vessels or oil ships transiting the Persian Gulf. In Washington, Netanyahu will undoubtedly paper over these risks and present an image of a war that will be quick, easy and cost free - as all wars are sold. Trump would be making a major mistake to believe him.

Over the weekend, another alarming arrest by ICE illustrated yet again how critical it is that we stay organized in these times. Dr. Vahid Abedini, Assistant Professor of Iranian Studies at the University of Oklahoma, was arrested at the airport by ICE with little explanation while on his way to a conference in Washington, DC on Middle East Studies. Following a widespread outcry led by his closest colleagues, focused intervention by his attorney, and support from a variety of academics and friends, we are relieved that Dr. Abedini was released this morning.

While the circumstances of this latest egregious arrest appear totally baseless, we know we need to remain vigilant for the many hundreds of our fellow Iranians across the U.S. who have been or could soon be targeted by ICE for their national heritage.

Based on our team’s efforts to support Iranians impacted by ICE arrests, here is what you need to know and how to get involved in defending our community’s rights:

• Detained individuals should immediately secure an attorney. Our Travel Ban and Immigrant Justice Center is stacked with legal resources so that people have a fair shot. In multiple cases we have supported, ICE’s flimsy and arbitrary case against a person fell apart - but only because they had a dedicated lawyer.

• Getting Congressional lawmakers involved heightens oversight and can be the difference. Our policy team connects families impacted by ICE directly to their U.S. lawmakers, who can help demand transparency and uphold people’s rights while in detention, including by addressing medical needs. Contact us and we’ll help connect you. No Member of Congress can magically “fix” any case, but their intervention holds weight and is often part of the solution.

• Coordinating strategic media coverage can ensure abuses don’t happen in the dark. It is critical to amplify verified information, act with direction from the family or attorney, help get the family’s story out on their terms to trusted reporters, and dispel any lies about the individuals who have been targeted. Our community deserves accurate coverage that humanizes Iranians in a system trying to dehumanize us.

• Activating grassroots support can address each family’s unique needs. Our nearly 70,000 members across the country can help raise money for impacted families, organize calls and emails to unresponsive Members of Congress, and provide certified translation support to Iranians facing detention so they have full due process. Get linked up to a chapter near you to be plugged into this work.

• Joining forces with the broader immigrant rights movement gives us more power. Trump is targeting all our communities, and we have to fight back together. Our Deportation Defense training partnered with the Asian Law Caucus and New York Civil Liberties Union to explain what to do when facing ICE arrests. Please check out and share our training.

• We must use every avenue to expose ICE: We are documenting all known public cases of Iranians arrested by ICE at the NIAC ICE Tracker, forcing their practices into the light with our recent FOIA lawsuit, and supporting congressional oversight efforts like the Master ICE Tracker led by Rep. Garcia.

Here’s the brutal truth: This is only going to get worse before it gets better. Staying organized in community power is the answer – and that starts with us.

If you know an Iranian impacted by ICE, contact us here and we will do everything we can to help.

Ultimately, there appears to be a severe mismatch between Israel’s desires and its capabilities vis-a-vis Iran. Iran has more than nine times the population of Israel and is seventy-five times larger. Yet the geopolitical rivalry between the two nations has been tilted in Israel’s favor by both severe economic sanctions on Iran and near-unchecked U.S. military support of Israel, which in 2024 helped surge Israeli military spending to more than $46 billion, a total that some estimates indicate is five times greater than total Iranian military expenditures.

Yet Israel’s extremely capable military has proven much more adept at bloodying its enemies than uprooting them. Despite leveling the vast majority of Gaza over more than two years of war, likely killing hundreds of thousands in the process, Hamas has been severely weakened yet is not gone. In September, French President Emmanuel Macron stated that Hamas had as many fighters as when the war first broke out, suggesting fertile ground for recruitment amid the devastation of Gaza. Hezbollah, as well, is seriously battered yet continues to resist pressure to disarm. And these are non-state actors close to Israel’s borders, not a regional power more than 1,000 miles away.

The Islamic Republic is an unpopular government, hated by many Iranians for its brutal crackdowns on popular protests and blamed for the manifold challenges Iranians face, including a bleak economic present and future amid the harsh impact of ever-present economic sanctions. The gap between the rulers and the ruled has created vulnerabilities that Israel has exploited for years, culminating in the apparent recruitment of cells that attacked from inside Iran at the outset of the 12 day war. These fractures could give the appearance of a regime vulnerable to toppling, yet they also risk obscuring many of the factors that have ensured the system endures.

The 12 day war offers a case study in the restraints Israel faces. Operating with the advantage of surprise, Israel killed many of Iran’s senior commanders and disabled a significant portion of its defense and reprisal capabilities. Yet Israel, alone, could not deliver significant blows to the Iranian nuclear sites - it needed the U.S. to intervene. Moreover, Iran recovered from its initial setbacks and started landing missile strikes in the heart of Israel, adapting its strategies and proving more adept at avoiding the layered missile defense shields over Israel as the war went on.

Amid the fog of war, Israel appears to have pursued some degree of effort to trigger mass defections and an uprising. Netanyahu even suggested on the third day of the war that Israel’s warfare “certainly could” lead to regime change in Iran, noting the unpopularity of the Iranian government. Yet calls to Iranian military commanders, threatening them and their families with death, did not appear to lead to a single defection. Separate half-baked attempts to trigger an uprising around the bombing of Evin prison didn’t turn Iranians out to the street, but instead provoked widespread anger. Many Iranians hate their government, but that doesn’t mean that they’ll turn out for any foreign belligerent that comes calling.

Both of these factors suggest that Israel would face considerable difficulty in provoking a regime change in Iran. A full-scale invasion, with hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground in an open-ended occupation, would likely be required to overthrow the Iranian government and install another. That would both be extremely atypical for the Israeli military and likely beyond its means. Separate efforts to provoke a mass movement that ousts the Iranian government may be attempted, but would also face strong headwinds. The Iranian government maintains a monopoly on violence and arrests opposition leaders that emerge. Moreover, the likelihood of mass defections in the Iranian military amid an external threat appears low.

What, then, would Israel seek to do? Assuming Israel’s leaders are hell-bent on regime change in Iran, one would have to assume they expect the U.S. - and the Trump administration in particular - to take on this project for them. Yet it is hard to imagine a venture less in line with the mantra of “America First.”

For years Americans have been told there was nothing they can do to challenge the supremacy of the Israel lobby. We were told in the 2024 election that it was impossible to have a presidential candidate who opposed the genocide in Gaza. Denied a voice in Washington, activists who organized the street were vilified by politicians and talking heads with accusations of being antisemites (nevermind that many of the protesters against the genocide are Jewish). Academics who dared to write op-eds questioning Israel’s war and America’s support were labeled terrorist sympathizers and abducted to be deported. Organizations that worked on for a new policy in the Middle East – against collective punishment, against war, in favor of diplomacy – were called Iranian government proxies. Lawmakers were told that if they opposed weapons shipments to Israel or spoke out against war and sanctions, they would be buried under tens of millions of dollars in attack ads and lose their next election.

The message was simple: submit to the Lobby or pay the price.For many, Zohran Mamdani’s victory was about breaking that expectation.

Mamdani, by organizing disaffected young voters to take on old guard Republicans and Democrats while refusing to back down on his anti-genocide position, delivered a powerful playbook for how to do so.

The campaign against Mamdani followed a familiar playbook that many of us have been subjected to. Right-wing influencers and outlets called him a terrorist. Trump, this time not needing to see a birth certificate, threatened to deport him. Liberal corporate media insinuated he was an antisemite because he would not pledge to visit Israel or ignore International Criminal Court warrants.

Usually, these tactics work. The intention is not to debate actual policy; it is to make anyone questioning the Israel-first order radioactive. And yet – Mamdani did not bend.

He did not win by relying on billionaires and corrupting PACs — he won by organizing over 90,000 volunteers and speaking truth to power consistently and unflinchingly. And he won resoundingly.

His victory is about more than one city. It is the first serious shift in a political paradigm that collapsed in the 2024 election and left millions of Americans disillusioned. In my conversations with grassroots volunteers and community members, more than ever before, the prevailing sentiment the past two years has been one of complete disillusionment in our democracy – a sense that ordinary people did not have political agency and cannot have real influence over decisions that shape their lives. That sense of powerlessness is not new – it is the same feeling that many Americans felt during the Iraq war that ebbed into Obama’s underdog victory over Hilary Clinton. It’s central to the phenomenon that helped usher in Trump, who promised to take a sledgehammer to a broken and unresponsive system.

For many, the refusal of both parties to simply be honest and acknowledge the scale of human suffering in Gaza and the complicity of our government was a new breaking point.

Mamdani’s win is proof that there is another path.

The shift is already visible. Senate candidates – from bold challengers to establishment incumbents – are now openly rejecting AIPAC money. In New York – where AIPAC and its blue-veneered offspring DMFI spent a record $20 million to unseat Jamaal Bowman last cycle – serious candidates have announced primary challenges to Israel Lobby darlings like Ritchie Torres and Dan Goldman. Across the map, our elected officials’ slavish devotion to an Israel-first Middle East policy is becoming a public, moral question that finally poses more political costs than benefits.

The task now is to scale this into a movement that is national, durable, and powerful enough to restore political agency and redefine what is possible in American public life.

To be sure, the power of the Israel lobby will not be broken overnight. The Lobby will now try to isolate Mamdani and make him a cautionary tale so that “moderates” can claim his formula was ultimately a losing one. But victories like this have a ripple effect. The reason that AIPAC and DMFI primary lawmakers like Bowman or Cori Bush or Andy Levin is not to remove a few pro-peace votes. It is to send a chilling effect through the halls of Congress – submit to the Lobby or lose your office. But now ordinary Americans are beginning to send their own message to those who hope to represent us: Submit to the Lobby and we will organize and defeat you.

Despite the damage inflicted, Iran’s response to Israel’s attack has been nearly totally dismissed by some observers who suggest launching the war on Iran was cost-free. Part of this analysis is based on previous Israeli-Iranian exchanges, notably the Iranian reprisal strikes in April and October 2024 that were highly telegraphed and appear to have been designed to deliver a message and manage escalation, rather than overwhelm the multi-layered Israeli missile defenses and deal considerable damage. However, in the June 2025 war, both Israel and Iran took the gloves off and dealt each other considerable blows.

Missile strikes constituted Iran’s main form of retaliation. With approximately 530 missiles launched amid the war, Iran appears to have delivered at least 35 direct hits, though some estimates note as many as 65 hits inside of Israel. These strikes killed 28 Israelis and injured more than 3,000, while also dealing considerable damage to buildings and homes.

In the urban and suburban environment where some of Iran’s missiles landed, damage spread not just from direct missile hits but from powerful shockwaves, causing major damage to dozens of buildings at a time. As one senior officer at Home Front Command told Haaretz earlier this year, “This is what a scene of destruction looks like in an urban environment. The bombs we dropped in Lebanon created the same effect.” Yet in Israel “the number of casualties was different. There are only 29 dead and not hundreds because here you can go to a protected space and close the door.”

Below, a map from Haaretz’s report shows the widespread destruction caused by an Iranian missile impact in Ramat Gam, a Tel Aviv suburb.

Many Israelis emerging from nearby shelters would return to find their homes destroyed along with their possessions. Other buildings farther from the impact survived but were dealt considerable damage, such as windows and doors blown out. Like countless innocents inside Iran who fled the bombing of Tehran and other cities, thousands of Israelis were displaced amid the war, their lives turned upside down by the conflict.

This destruction added up. The Israeli Tax Authority noted that damage in the 12 day war led to a record 53,599 compensation claims from Israeli citizens. 36,928 of these dealt with private residences, while businesses accounted for 5,108 claims and vehicles for 5,400. The total damages are estimated to be in the billions of dollars, with compensation work ongoing.

Aside from the considerable damage to residential structures in Tel Aviv, its suburbs and other locations throughout Israel, Iranian missiles appear to have landed strikes on and near key Israeli defense sites as well as infrastructure including the Haifa oil refinery complex and the Weizmann Institute of Science.

Iran managed these strikes on Israeli territory amid some of the most challenging conditions imaginable. Israel eliminated the upper echelon of Iran’s military commanders in the opening hours of the war, disrupting Iran’s command and control and depriving the nation of critical experience dating back to the bloody Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. With air defenses decimated, including by drone attack, Israeli strikes targeted Iranian missile bases and missile launchers, particularly in western Iran, limiting Iran’s ability to both access and launch a significant portion of its missile arsenal. Such conditions seem unlikely to be fully replicated in a future outbreak of war.

Despite these considerable setbacks, Iran’s military found its footing and showed an ability to penetrate Israel’s layered missile defense systems with increasing success as the war went on, and as missile defense stocks were being expended at a rapid rate. These trendlines augur poorly for Israel’s ability to limit damage in a future outbreak of war.

A rational actor might survey the damage Iran inflicted and determine that such a cost was prohibitively high and could easily have been much worse. Yet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and many of his allies in the government appear to have baked the costs of Iran’s retaliatory strikes into their decision to strike Iran in the first place, judging it worth the apparent gain of setting back Iran’s nuclear program along with its military and scientific capabilities on a temporary basis.

Yet the considerable costs to civilians on both sides should not be dismissed, particularly as the threat of more war still looms. Those who have pushed attacking Iran for years never suggested that it should be a one and done. Rather, they envisioned repeated military strikes on Iran. If they get their wish, that will likely mean repeated, powerful missile impacts inside of Israel as well.

Such street performances and gatherings are increasingly common in Iran, and offer a glimpse into a complex and continuously changing society that continues to defy simplistic description. Of particular note in the video is the contrast with Islamic Republic mandates. Hijab adherence is minimal to nonexistent among the mixed gender gathering, while a woman is among the musicians performing. It is a scene one could see in many of the world’s great capitals, and for many observers - particularly those outside the country - it is a shock to see it in Iran.

Three years prior, the nation was rocked by the momentous 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom protests, during which Iranian youth, women and their allies demanded change in the face of a brutal crackdown. Yet, Iranians’ collective will forced the Iranian government to accept new social freedoms - or at least, Iranians made enforcement of those restrictions too costly for the government to pursue. As we noted, loosened enforcement of hijab was the most enduring gain of the movement.

The Iranian government gave ground on social restrictions while continuing to stymie calls for political transformation, as advanced by many prominent political and human rights voices. Yet there has been no formal surrender from the Supreme Leader or hardliners on hijab enforcement or any other issue. Rather, the push of Iranian society against the government has seemingly led to an implicit decision - both acknowledged and resisted by various actors within the Iranian government - that to claw back enforcement of mandatory hijab and other rigid social norms would be too costly. There is precedent for this. In cases such as the law banning the use of satellite dishes, the government suspended its enforcement without officially repealing it.

Hence, some enforcement - against businesses, or actresses - continues, and some authority figures cling to the possibility of wider enforcement. However, the reality of Iranians in the street has left that possibility far behind.

Social change has been adopted unofficially, while broader political reform has been strongly denied. Whether this is a dynamic that can continue in perpetuity, particularly amid continued severe pressure on Iranian society, is uncertain. But many of us can appreciate that Iranians are living their lives as best they can, and in so doing continue to push the boundaries on rigid social restrictions.

But whether Netanyahu succeeds or not depends on several key factors that aren’t yet fully determined.

U.S. President Donald Trump signs the Israeli Knesset guest book on October 13, 2025. Photo via The White House / Wikimedia.

How much damage did Iran do?

The initial impression of the 12 day war was one of Israeli tactical brilliance, leading to heavy Iranian losses. Yet less appreciated is that Iran recovered from its initial shock and began to inflict significant blows in the heart of Israel. Given extensive Israeli military censorship, the full story of that damage may not have been fully told.

Regardless, we know that Iran’s retaliation was on another level from what Israel has experienced in recent years. According to ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data), Iran’s missile retaliation over the course of the 12 days resulted in “at least 36 direct hits,” excluding those that impacted in open areas, killing 28 people and resulting in 3,000 injuries. By contrast, ACLED notes “the sophistication of Iran’s missile arsenal posed a more lethal threat to Israel during these 12 days than in any previous phases since the start of the Gaza war: Rocket, missile, and drone fire from Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen over more than 600 days resulted in just over 40 Israeli civilian deaths and over 3,000 injuries.” Some of the strikes may have struck near sensitive Israeli defense facilities, according to some reports.

Iran also was able to adapt to Israel’s multilayered missile defense shield, proving increasingly adept at frustrating it and landing strikes toward the end of the conflict. The Wall Street Journal, citing data from Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), noted in the first half of the conflict, 8% of Iran’s missiles slipped through Israel’s defenses. By the second half of the war, 16% got past Israel’s interceptors. The second-to-last day of the war also saw Iran land its most hits, according to the data, where 10 of 27 Iranian missiles resulted in direct strikes. Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft added some color to this narrative, noting that Iran fired fewer missiles later in the war but found more success, deploying cyber attacks to disrupt Israel’s defenses in critical seconds to create gaps for the missiles.

The June war took place amid near-ideal circumstances for Israel, with the Israeli attack catching Iran flat-footed and doing damage to Iran’s ability to defend itself and launch reprisals. Yet, because Iran demonstrated its ability to pierce Israel’s missile defenses, Israel would have to be ready for significant reprisals in any relaunch of the war. This poses a not insignificant check on further aggression.

Have Iran and Israel reloaded?

Israel and Iran are each taking significant steps to prepare for a new round of fighting, and gain any edge that could be advantageous both to deter attack and to potentially deliver more severe blows. This race for an edge could be decisive for decisionmakers determining whether, and when, to attack.

This week, Iranian media offered an inside look at an IRGC missile base, featuring video of apparently new and repaired launchers equipped with medium-range ballistic missiles. The message was clear - while Israel took its best shot in June, including knocking out some launchers, Iran is reloading for another round and will not be caught unprepared again. With Russia and China rejecting the validity of the restoration of UN sanctions, which include an arms embargo, Tehran is likely pushing hard for tangible military support via arms shipments that can put Iran on better footing for any resumption of war.

Israel, as well, is undoubtedly planning new steps for the next phase of the war. This likely includes steps to replenish its missile defenses, particularly after the U.S. expended nearly a quarter of its global THAAD missile interceptors throughout the course of the June war.

At the outset of its war, Israel also executed sabotage operations to take Iranian air defenses offline, which were reportedly conducted via cells it had recruited to launch drones from within Iranian soil. These covert actions took key Iranian air defenses offline, helping ensure Israel was able to deliver heavy blows in the opening days of the war. Yet such clandestine operations take a long time to execute and pull off, and it is not clear if they can be replicated in the short and medium term, particularly now that Iran is seeking to address its own internal security vulnerabilities. As Danny Citrinowicz warned, “Israel is unlikely to enjoy such ideal conditions in the next round. Whether Iran strikes first out of miscalculation or Israel launches another attack, Iran’s readiness will be on a different level.”

Would Trump stop Netanyahu from attacking?

If Israel is not deterred by the damage Iran inflicted in June, and if Israel perceives it has the upper hand for another strike, the key question will be whether President Trump allows an attack to go forward. In the lead-up to the war in June, President Trump shifted from a red light on war to a green light for Netanyahu. That led down a path wherein President Trump ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities before declaring success and quickly pivoting to a ceasefire.

Despite becoming the first President not to balk at Israeli pressure to strike Iranian soil directly, Trump does not seem overly eager to engage in another round of war with Iran. While he has hinted at the possibility of strikes if Iran moved to weaponize its nuclear program, he has dismissed claims that Iran is doing so and suggested in his remarks to the Israeli Knesset that a peace agreement with Iran would be “nice.” Moreover, Trump has fashioned himself - regardless of the validity - as a President that prioritizes peace. He has also shown that he can rein in Netanyahu when he goes too far. It took less than one month between Netanyahu ordering a strike targeting Hamas mediators in Qatar for President Trump to hammer out a ceasefire that has tamped down the violence in Gaza.

President Trump remains the indisputable key player in the Iran nuclear standoff, as the U.S. possesses both the weapons capable of damaging Iran’s most hardened sites and the leverage to force Israel to back down on any aggression. Just as Trump forced Netanyahu to end the war at 12 days, he can likely block or end any resumption of the war by withholding his support. Yet Netanyahu knows he also maneuvered Trump into an Iran war one time before, and may think he can do so again. Whether he is able to is anyone’s guess in these tense times.

Ahead of and during his tour of the Middle East to tout his brokering of a ceasefire in Gaza, Trump has been talking the talk again, sounding a good bit like he did before he gave a green light to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to strike Iran in June.

Last week, President Trump stated “Iran has informed us that it now wants to work on peace, and [the Iranians] said they are totally in favor of this deal.” He added that his administration would “cooperate with Tehran” in this effort and expressed hope that Iran could “rebuild its country.” Speaking before the Israeli Knesset, Trump doubled down, saying “You know what would be great, if we could make a peace deal with [Iran]. Would you be happy with that? Wouldn’t it be nice? Because I think they want to. I think they’re tired.”

Adding to this pro-peace rhetoric, President Trump’s administration extended an offer to Iran to attend the Gaza ceasefire summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, which could be interpreted as a notable - and all too rare - olive branch between Washington and Tehran. Iran, however, declined. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote “While favoring diplomatic engagement, neither President Pezeshkian nor I can engage with counterparts who have attacked the Iranian People and continue to threaten and sanction us.” He welcomed any step that “ends Israel’s Genocide in Gaza” and asserted that “Iran is not after Forever Wars —particularly on the dime of its purported allies— but seeks Forever Peace, Prosperity, and Cooperation.” Some observers sharply criticized Iran’s decision, warning that Iran was missing a critical opportunity. Setting aside the triumphalist tenor of the meeting - which would have opened any Iranian participation to sharp domestic criticism for no gain on core security interests - this offer took place amid an enormous trust deficit. Not only does Iran still feel badly burned from the last time it engaged in negotiations - which ended in bombing - but Iran has received no indications that President Trump is willing to back off from maximalist conditions that would render new nuclear negotiations fruitless.

More than four decades of bad blood have made U.S.-Iran relations one of the thorniest international challenges to solve, and the easiest to devolve. If Trump is serious, he can’t just extend an offer to accept Iran’s surrender - which Iranian leaders would never accept. He needs to do the hard work of negotiating with tradeoffs, such as putting serious sanctions relief on the table, indicating privately that he will continue to enforce the Israeli-Iranian ceasefire, and revisiting creative solutions to Iran’s insistence that it will not surrender any of its perceived rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Such an approach, paired with his pro-peace rhetoric, could open serious opportunities for negotiations, and put a Trump-Iran deal within reach.

Iran, as well, is faced with two paths - the first is to rely solely on military deterrence to thwart those in Tel Aviv and Washington who want to reopen the June war. Yet military deterrence alone did not stop Israel from attacking first on three separate occasions throughout the course of the war in Gaza.

Iran, while far from defenseless, is out gunned, the forces aligned with it are either small or distracted by bigger issues and its economy is trapped in the vice of crushing sanctions.

The second path is for Iran to engage seriously to find a way out of the security and economic trap it has been mired in for the past seven years. President Trump is the only one who can make a deal with Iran for the foreseeable future. While Iran is a proud nation and negotiating with Trump is not without risk, closing the door to talks entirely risks ensuring a slide back to war.

A path is available for negotiations, despite all the effort over the years to obstruct it and deliver the U.S. and Iran to endless war. Thus far, Trump and Iran have remained far apart with only minimal efforts to bridge the gaps.

The division, slander and fear that swept through our community in recent years was never organic. It was engineered.

Breaking new investigations from the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab and the Israeli outlet Haaretz confirmed what many Iranian Americans had long suspected: a state-directed influence operation, powered by thousands of fake accounts and artificial intelligence, has been working to manipulate Iranian and Iranian-American conversations online. Now we know it was being funded and managed by Israel.

A Manufactured Reality: Targeting Iranians in 2025

The findings describe a coordinated psychological operation to influence Iranians in the midst of the June war, propagandizing ordinary citizens and pushing them to take steps that would endanger their lives. Fake accounts posing as Iranians on social media pushed AI-generated videos and posts pushing for an uprising. These networks were not random chatter: they were timed to coincide with Israeli military operations.

One of the most brazen examples was a deepfake video showing an explosion at Tehran’s Evin Prison. It spread worldwide before journalists were able to confirm it was fabricated. Alongside such falsehoods, the campaign amplified monarchist voices, elevating Reza Pahlavi in an effort to manufacture consent for regime change at the barrel of a gun.

This was not grassroots activism. Investigators traced the networks back to private contractors tied to the Israeli government. The goal was clear: sow unrest inside Iran, fracture the diaspora abroad against diplomacy, and normalize the idea that war and imperialist regime change were inevitable. The 2025 operation targeting Iranians inside the country was not unprecedented. The very same tactics had already been deployed against the diaspora in 2022, with the aim of dividing our community and uniting factions around militarism.

A Rehearsed Playbook: Targeting the Diaspora in 2022

It’s critical to understand that this was not the first time these tactics were deployed. In 2022, during the Zan, Zendegi, Azadi movement, the same playbook was used to fracture the Iranian diaspora and attack anti-war voices.

Another newly released report from Social Forensics documented how disinformation networks - again tied to Israeli actors - unleashed waves of online harassment and smear campaigns against Iranian-American activists, journalists, and community organizations. Those forensic findings are not abstract analytics; they map directly onto real-world harm - violence, threats, and intimidation - captured by major outlets at the time.

Politico chronicled how this wave of disinformation and slander vilified Iranian Americans in the wake of the 2022 protests. One activist described being inundated with violent Persian-language threats, some threatening rape, others threatening to kill her. “I’ll find you and I’ll burn you alive,” one message declared. Some attackers even claimed to know where she lived.

The pattern extended beyond individuals to whole currents of political discourse. Alex Shams in Boston Review outlined how inauthentic social media accounts linked to Israel systematically targeted anti-war, anti-intervention voices while amplifying the profile of former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.

The New York Times reported how, while most figures inside and outside Iran opposed Israel’s war, certain prominent diaspora voices sought to capitalize on the chaos to advance militarist agendas. Veteran journalist Farnaz Fassihi later pointed to the 2025 Haaretz revelations as confirmation of the smear campaigns and vicious attacks she herself had faced since 2021 - simply for doing her job.

Others faced consequences just as unsettling. Journalist and analyst Negar Mortazavi was also subjected to relentless harassment, which escalated to a bomb threat against one of her public panels at the University of Chicago. Even elected officials were not spared: Washington State Rep. Darya Farivar recounted how disinformation campaigns surrounding the 2022 protests triggered death threats against her on the eve of her swearing-in.

What was dismissed then as paranoia or conspiracy is now documented fact. The lived experience of coordinated trolling, gaslighting, and harassment - particularly aimed at women, queer Iranians, and younger activists - has been vindicated with hard evidence.

Silencing, Not Debating

For years, Iranian Americans were told they were alone or in the minority for opposing war and supporting diplomacy. The opposite is true. NIAC’s 2025 YouGov poll shows that the majority of Iranian Americans favor peace and diplomacy - not war, not imperialist foreign meddling.

These disinformation campaigns were never about argument or persuasion. They were designed to silence. The goal was not debate but attrition: to exhaust, isolate, and drive people out of public life until only the loudest pro-war voices remained.

What makes these operations particularly insidious is the way they exploit collective trauma. Motivated actors with no stake in the wellbeing of Iranians weaponized our history of displacement, repression, and exile. They convinced our diaspora to attack one another, mistrust family and friends, and mistake manipulation for grassroots energy.

The harm has been real: fractured collective movements for diplomacy and a community less able to speak with a united voice against war.

A Broader Democratic Crisis

These operations are not confined to Iranians. The same disinformation networks bleed into American political life, distorting debates in Congress and in media coverage. They elevate fringe voices while drowning out mainstream Iranian-American perspectives, effectively shaping U.S. discourse with a foreign government’s agenda.

The precedent is dangerous. Just as recent reports revealed Israel paying influencers up to $7,000 a day to generate anti-Palestinian content online, the disinformation directed at Iranians represents a new form of state-sponsored propaganda - weaponized not only against adversaries abroad, but against democratic debate in the United States.

The use of generative AI and deepfakes marks a grim turning point. What Iranians are experiencing today foreshadows the information wars of tomorrow: disinformation scaled to industrial levels, personalized, automated, and capable of hijacking entire communities. This is not just a foreign policy issue; it is a civil rights issue. Free speech, democratic participation, and even personal safety are at imminent risk.

The Truth is Out

For too long, those raising alarms were met with dismissal. Iranian Americans who said they were being targeted by coordinated online harassment were accused of exaggeration. Organizations like NIAC, which consistently criticize both U.S. militarism and Iran’s human rights abuses, were smeared with baseless claims. Experts - especially women - were harassed until they left the field altogether.

Now the evidence is undeniable. These disinformation campaigns were not grassroots or organic. They were state-linked operations, designed to destabilize and divide.

What we do with this knowledge matters. We can no longer afford to treat foreign disinformation as a niche or secondary issue. It is a central feature of how wars in the 21st century are being sold, how communities are divided, and how democracy is manipulated.

Ultimately, the diaspora is one of the most powerful forces against war and for diplomacy that will fundamentally improve conditions for Iranians inside Iran fighting for more rights and freedom. There are imperialist state actors outside our community significantly motivated to destroy that.

Iranians in the diaspora can and do have debates and disagree about the best foreign policy of the U.S towards Iran. What’s been exposed now, though, is that others have co-opted the suffering of Iranians inside Iran to insert themselves in harmful ways in that discussion — ultimately for the cause of more war.

We must not allow these forces to exploit the tragedy of government repression in Iran to advocate for more bombs falling on Iranian civilians.

RESOURCES

• Read the full investigation on Citizen Lab (English, فارسی)

• Investigation in Haaretz

• Investigation in Haaretz on Pahlavi Influence

• Report on BBC Persian (فارسی)

• Report on Radio Farda (فارسی)

• Euro News Persian (فارسی)

• BBC Persian (فارسی)

• Nour News (فارسی)

• Social Forensics Report documenting 2022 disinformation

On Friday, CNN pundit Van Jones provoked outrage when he claimed that opposition to Israel’s war on Gaza among Americans is Iran and Qatar’s fault. In claiming that the problem was too many ‘dead Gaza baby’ videos on social media that were the product of a vast Iranian and Qatari conspiracy, he wasn’t just trafficking in atrocity denial or trying to change the subject – he was pedaling the very disinformation and manipulation that he claimed to condemn.

Just hours before these heinous remarks, two explosive investigations — by Citizen Lab, one of the world’s leading digital-forensics teams, and Haaretz, Israel’s own newspaper of record — revealed, yet again, the actual propaganda machine: an Israeli-operated network of inauthentic social media accounts utilizing sophisticated artificial intelligence tools to manipulate public opinion in favor of Israeli government interests.

The reports revealed that, during Israel’s June war on Iran, Israeli government operatives and contractors used armies of fake personas to push doctored videos, false news, and emotional calls to try to coerce Iranians to rise up against their government.

While Iranian civilians sheltered from bombs, this bot network spread doctored AI videos—like one showing Evin Prison under attack—then urged citizens to rush there and ‘free prisoners’, even as the prison was a war zone. Other fabrications included images of fake bank runs and even an AI video of beloved musicians like Shervin Hajipour, with lyrics of his famous song “Baraye” turned into urgent calls for an uprising.

As shocking as these revelations may be to some, this type of deceptive online manipulation by Israel in the service of war is nothing new.

A Campaign to Silence Iranian-American Voices

When our organization, NIAC, began receiving waves of online attacks in the midst of the 2022 Women, Life, Freedom movement that had galvanized so many Iranians and the diaspora, we commissioned Social Forensics – an independent digital-forensics firm – to investigate what was going on. Their report unearthed significant evidence of a coordinated propaganda campaign that included sock puppet accounts and inauthentic coordinated activity to amplify attacks on journalists, experts, and civil society. These efforts were clearly at the level that only a state actor could undertake, and there were numerous ties to the Israeli government.

The online attacks targeted journalists, experts, human rights advocates, and civic organizations like ours who had ever spoken out against war on Iran, and they didn’t stop at disinformation – they unleashed real-world consequences.

Iranian-American journalists and activists received death and rape threats, events at universities were targeted with bomb threats, and elected officials like Washington State Rep. Darya Farivar endured harassment fueled by online lies.

The effect was chilling — silencing dissent, isolating community leaders, and discouraging others from speaking out.

For NIAC, the campaign was designed to collapse political support for diplomacy, intimidate pro-peace voices into silence, and ultimately manufacture consent for a U.S.–Israel war on Iran.

The Social Forensics report analyzed 1.5 million tweets attacking 23 individuals and groups — including journalists from The New York Times and BBC Persian, diplomats and elected officials, and our organization.

The findings were chilling:

• 125,000 tweets per day targeting NIAC during a 10-day smear wave in October 2022 — an unheard-of number for a small, advocacy-focused nonprofit.

• Hundreds of thousands of fake accounts, many newly created, using crown-emoji profiles to simulate “grassroots” monarchist movements.

• Dozens of these fake accounts are directly followed by official Israeli government handles, including @IsraelPersian — the state’s Persian-language channel — and its New Media Director.

This was not organic outrage; it was algorithmic warfare aimed at creating a mob mentality — an effort to create the illusion of mass hostility toward Iranian-American voices who oppose war and support diplomacy.

The report traces many of these accounts back to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which openly experiments with what it calls “algorithmic diplomacy” — using code and automation to steer online narratives.

Former MFA officials now run private firms that specialize in social-media “narrative dominance.”

Add to that an army of state-linked influencers — from Netanyahu’s digital adviser Hananya Naftali to marketers like Emily Schrader — and the picture becomes clear: a government-contracted propaganda ecosystem masquerading as grassroots activism.

The Double Standard

Imagine if any other government — Russia, China, or Iran — were caught running such an extensive covert propaganda effort against Americans. Congress would have already held hearings, and some actors in the offending state would have been held accountable.

But when the culprit is a U.S. ally and the victims are Middle Eastern Americans, the silence is deafening.

When the New York Times reported the Israeli government was targeting U.S. lawmakers with bots and coordinated online activities, NIAC and our partners called for a federal investigation into these operations — and for stronger protections for U.S. journalists, activists, and civic groups targeted by foreign influence campaigns. The Biden Administration did nothing. And we’re not holding our breath that the current administration will act any differently.

Van Jones and others were quick to blame “Iranian propaganda” for Americans’ moral outrage over Gaza. I am sure that Iran engages in online propaganda and targeting of civil society, because we have been subjected to attacks from them as well.

Yet the evidence shows that the true powerhouse of online disinformation is Israeli influence networks — not Iranian bots — that have sought to manipulate Americans, smear journalists, and target our community for years. And, until now, they’ve done so with zero transparency and complete impunity.

Learn More

• Citizen Lab: Israeli-Linked Influence Operation Targeting Iranians and Global Audiences

• Haaretz: Israel’s AI Propaganda Network Exposed

• Social Forensics Report: State-Sponsored Platform Manipulation in the Iranian Twittersphere (2023)

• NIAC Statement: Society Demands Federal Investigation into Israeli Campaign Targeting Americans

As revealed by Iranian officials and reported on in American publications, the U.S. government chartered a deportation flight to Iran with 55 Iranian nationals. In total, roughly 400 Iranian nationals are expected to be deported to Iran in future flights, though thousands of Iranians ultimately are at risk of eventual deportation.

Escalation after the June War

The deportation flight follows a wave of harsh ICE arrests of Iranian nationals following the June war, which saw more than 130 arrests of Iranian nationals in the week that followed, with ICE portraying the nationals as major security threats. Contrary to their portrayal, the vast majority of the cases appear to involve fairly typical people who happened to encounter complications in their immigration status, often caused by a minor offense or misstep years ago.

The very notion of a deportation flight to Iran is new. In the absence of formal diplomatic relations between the Islamic Republic and the United States, the Iranian government has not cooperated on deportations to its territory. This fact was cited by the Trump administration to justify its targeting of Iranian nationals in its most recent travel bans, as well as prior ban iterations from the first Trump administration. As President Trump’s Executive Order stated in June, Iran “has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals.”

The scale of the deportations also appears to be a significant jump. ICE removal data indicates that only 79 nationals from Iran were deported across more than four years, between October 2021 and January 2025. 55 deportations in a single flight is a total that more than doubles total deportations of Iranian nationals in any recent calendar year.

The Human Impact of Detention and Removal

Ultimately, the start of deportation flights to Iran underscores the extremely difficult position Iranian nationals face once caught in America’s deportation machine. Iranian nationals have reported unsanitary and overcrowded conditions inside ICE detention facilities, adding to the suffering of those ripped apart from their families and wondering when, if ever, they’ll be allowed to return to their loved ones and the life they were leading. Earlier this year, Alireza Doroudi, a student who had been attending the University of Alabama prior to his arrest by ICE, chose to self-deport despite having a promising path to release when faced with miserable conditions in detention and experiencing the rejection of a country that appeared not to want him.

While some individuals have been offered deportation to a third country, like Romania, this is a daunting prospect as the deportees wouldn’t be able to speak the language and would be cut off from any support network. Given these difficult alternatives, deportation back to Iran could be a source of relief for some: freedom from continued harsh imprisonment, knowledge of the country and language and family and friends to fall back on. But for others, it risks delivering Iranian nationals back into the hands of the authoritarian government they fled from in the first place. For some individuals, that could mean a death sentence.

It is clear that at least some of those on board did not want to be deported and could face risks upon their return to Iran. As Farnaz Fassihi of The New York Times reported, “Among them were a 30-year-old woman who is a Christian convert; a 36-year-old man — the father of a newborn — who is an ethnic minority and political dissident in Iran; and a young man who had come to the United States with dreams of economic prosperity.”

Narrowing Pathways for Iranians in the U.S.

The prospect of Iranian nationals coming to and staying in the United States to pursue the American dream has never been more difficult. Visas are now banned across the board for Iranians. For those here, ICE arrests and the prospect of deportation, are an increasing risk. It’s more important than ever for the rights of Iranians to be respected: by the U.S. government which must allow Iranians at risk to seek and secure asylum, and by the Iranian government must uphold its international rights obligations and halt all abuses of its citizenry.

This week, sanctions were officially reimposed on Iran after the UN reactivated them using the “snapback” mechanism. The snapback drama has been a theater of the absurd: just three months after being bombed by both the U.S. and Israel, Iran now receives the penalty of reimposed sanctions for halting compliance with a deal that the U.S. wholesale violated more than seven years ago. This won’t make a peaceful outcome of the nuclear crisis more likely, and does serious harm to diplomatic prospects in the near term.

The road to snapback has been paved by years of escalation: after the 2015 nuclear deal imposed unprecedented inspections on Iran, the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew in 2018 and launched a policy of “maximum pressure,” followed by his administration’s 2020 assassination of General Qassem Soleimani that brought the two countries to the brink of war. Efforts to revive the deal under Biden faltered in 2021-22; Biden’s administration kept sanctions in place and Iran expanded its program, while Israel intensified covert operations and direct strikes.

By June 2025, the U.S. and Israel bombed Iran directly, killing more than a thousand people (over half civilians) and illustrating how failures of U.S. foreign policy across multiple presidential administrations produce deadly results.

Now, rather than rebuilding diplomacy, Washington and Europe, by persuasion of Israel, have finalized snapback sanctions, burying the JCPOA era and setting the stage for war resurgence.

The European troika, who once served as intermediaries between the U.S. and Iran, instead adopted the role of maximum pressure acolytes. By following Washington’s lead, they expended their leverage to increase pressure on Tehran. A resolution of the nuclear crisis will no longer depend on Europe; other players, including Russia and China, may soon step into the void.

This was an imminently resolvable standoff, yet Washington and the E3 rejected offramps put forward by Tehran that could have restored basic transparency and de-escalated tensions. The end result is escalation, narrowing the political space for negotiation in Tehran and raising the risk of reigniting the June war.

The Trump administration must halt its inexorable path to a long war of choice in Iran. President Trump is begging to be recognized as a pro-peace innovator, but it seems increasingly unlikely he can even clean up the wreckage his own administration created. Blindly following Netanyahu into confrontation doesn’t make him a peacemaker– it makes him a sidekick in someone else’s war. The only way he can claim the mantle he craves is by reopening negotiations and steering U.S. policy away from escalation.

Lost in the back and forth of the political drama over snapback at the UN are the civilian consequences. These sanctions are not targeted at decisionmakers in Tehran, but are broad measures that have primarily punished ordinary Iranians. These measures choke off access to medicine, food, and financial stability, worsening inflation and driving millions deeper into poverty. History has shown that broad sanctions rarely bring about political change; instead, they devastate the most vulnerable while hardliners tighten their grip. For everyday Iranians, snapback means more economic despair, more isolation, and fewer prospects for a dignified life.

The finalization of snapback symbolizes the final nail in the coffin of the JCPOA era, one typified more by failure to follow through on its vision than on the failure of the negotiators themselves. Ultimately, the U.S. abandoned negotiation for coercion, increasingly relying on Netanyahu’s vision of military provocation and dictation instead of mutual compromise. The consequence isn’t security, but dead civilians, a collapsing Iranian middle class, and a narrowing path that leads in one direction only: back to war.

A batch of leaked transcripts from Israeli security cabinet meetings during the June 12 war on Iran reveal what many have long suspected: not only was there no "imminent threat" from Iran to justify the assault, but Israeli officials mapped out how and when to strike Iranian civilians.

In one exchange, Defense Minister Israel Katz explicitly advocated for targeting ordinary Iranians, arguing that “relocating the population is practical and symbolic. We should strike civilian national infrastructure that destabilizes the leader.”

This was put into practice. Many Iranians fled Tehran, one of the world’s most populous cities, in a terrifying exodus. Others who could not flee, including the elderly and infirm, were forced to stay and hope that the bombs spared their neighborhoods. Ultimately, more than 1,000 Iranians were killed — over half of them civilians.

Katz assured the cabinet there would be cover for attacking civilians and infrastructure in Iran's most populous city, saying, "there are military targets in Tehran." As a recent study by ACLED found, “Nearly one-third of all violent events attributed to Israel occurred in Tehran province, and the majority were concentrated in the capital city.”

Most chilling, the disagreements among Israeli officials in the leaked deliberations largely centered on the sequencing of strikes on civilian targets – specifically, how to ensure that Israel succeeds in one of its key goals: drawing the United States into the war.

According to Katz:

“If [Iran] targets power stations, we won’t have a dilemma. We’ll attack civil infrastructure now, even though they are targets we want to keep for later."

But Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer pushed back – not on targeting civilians, but on the most opportune timing:

“If we attack civilian infrastructure now, it could end the war before we achieve our objectives and before an attack on Fordo."

The debate was not whether to strike civilian infrastructure, but when – officials did not want to jeopardize a U.S. decision to enter the war. Netanyahu had “pushed and maneuvered” Trump to join Israel, said Dermer. Drawing in the U.S. was important because, as a senior military official said, Fordo “will only be destroyed only if the US attacks it.” But it would also help ensure Washington would be on the hook for cleaning up Israel’s mess.

Perhaps the least shocking aspect of these transcripts is that there was no imminent Iranian threat. On the eve of the war, Netanyahu said Iran was within a few years of the bomb – despite later claims by Israeli and U.S. officials after the attack began that Iran was on the cusp of weaponization.

Netanyahu, of course, has been repeating the claim of an imminent Iranian nuclear threat since the 1990s in his campaign to foment a military conflict – Iran has perpetually been on the brink of a bomb for over 30 years according to the Prime Minister. Yet even after long sought Israeli and U.S. strikes, Iran still remains less than ‘a few years’ from the bomb, according to U.S. intelligence assessments – meaning it is only a matter of time before Netanyahu and the Iran hawks claim we need to attack Iran again.

Based on these transcripts, Israel's ultimate aim is to collapse Iran – first by decapitating military and civilian leadership, then by bombing infrastructure and killing and relocating civilians. Israeli leaders were clearly envisioning a longer war in June, and it was only the U.S. administration’s pivot from strikes to ceasefire that kept the war at 12 days - for now. Yet even as Israel’s own deliberations show civilians are at the center of the strategy, war advocates continue to claim strikes will only target ‘the regime and its nuclear program.’ June proved otherwise — as has Gaza, where Israel insists it only targets ‘terrorists’ as the Palestinian civilian death toll climbs, by some estimates, into the hundreds of thousands.

The next Iran war is still very much on Israel's agenda, if figures close to Donald Trump are to be believed, and these transcripts make clear: Iranian civilian casualties are not collateral damage, they are the strategy.

Today, on the anniversary of September 11, we remember the lives lost and the families forever changed on that day. For our community, the day carries an additional weight—a reminder of both the compassion shared between ordinary Iranians and Americans, and the hardships many in our community faced in its aftermath.

Sadly, back home here in the United States, many in our community were met with suspicion instead of solidarity. Those tensions only increased as President George W. Bush made his infamous “Axis of Evil” speech naming Iran, Iraq and North Korea the enemies of our country. The U.S. government ushered in a new era of surveillance, profiling, discrimination and attacks on our rights that continues to day - from the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, to the PATRIOT Act and programs like NSEERS “special registration” that targeted immigrants and sowed fear.

The seeds of repression sown after 9/11 persist today. Our community faces a baseless travel ban that has separated our families on the basis of nationality alone. ICE is a lawless and violent agency detaining Iranian nationals and immigrants of all backgrounds at record levels. The history of surveillance continues through ICE’s partnerships with Palantir and Paragon Solutions, expanding high-tech monitoring and data collection. And we are more at risk of war with Iran breaking out than ever.

Iranian Americans, like many other targeted groups, remain subjected to violations of due process, invasive interviews, long visa delays, and even the closing of bank accounts—parallels to the Muslim Ban and subsequent Travel Ban that prolonged family separations for years. And just as dissent was chilled in the early 2000s, we now see critics of U.S. foreign policy and immigration enforcement facing intimidation, censorship, and heightened scrutiny under the guise of ‘national security.’ These experiences were part of what led to NIAC’s founding: to defend our rights, protect our dignity, and ensure our voices would not be silenced.

This summer, in June, Iranian Americans leaders joined Peace Action, Brooklyn For Peace, IfNotNow, and local rabbis to lead a candlelight vigil outside Senator Chuck Schumer’s Manhattan office, honoring civilians killed in the 12 day Israel-Iran war and pleading for him to endorse a congressional war powers resolution on Iran. People joined hands across backgrounds to tell our elected leaders once again that grief must not become fuel for endless conflict.

Two decades later, the lesson of 9/11 endures: we cannot allow grief to be weaponized into more division. At NIAC, we continue to push for policies that treat our community with fairness—ending discriminatory bans, restoring access to visas, protecting civil rights—and for U.S. foreign policy that prioritizes diplomacy over sanctions and war. We do this knowing that ordinary Americans and Iranians alike want peace, dignity, and the chance to live freely.

Our community knows too well that ordinary people suffer when governments choose repression, fear, or conflict over humanity.

As we honor the memory of those who were killed in the September 11 attacks, we also lift up the truth about our community then and now, and will keep fighting for our rights. As Iranians did after 9/11, we will continue to light the path toward a future shaped by understanding instead of fear.

The Washington Post editorial board published an official opinion piece on September 2, 2025, entitled “Iran is poking the bear again,” which serves as an official blessing from one of the nation’s highest-circulated newspapers to take the United States back to war with Iran.

Citing the continued standoff between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency following Israeli and American attacks on Iran in June, the editorial board declares, “Iran’s recalcitrance raises the prospect that American military forces might need to be called in again.” It also warns that “the United States is not afraid of using military force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons,” noting that “Trump resisted pressure from the vocal isolationist faction in his base” amid the June war, signaling that the President could order strikes again if needed and the nuclear standoff persists.

This isn’t the case of the editorial board merely taking a bad position. The media helps shape the political environment around war and peace. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, editorial boards across the country - including The Washington Post - beat the drum steadily for war. As Bill Moyers noted in the documentary Buying the War, “in the six months leading up to the invasion (of Iraq) The Washington Post would editorialize in favor of the war at least 27 times.” As a result, it’s important to correct the record and make sure that history isn’t repeating itself.

The authors willfully ignore that a renewal of the June war against Iran would be illegal under both domestic and international law, and far more likely to deepen ongoing concerns about Iran’s nuclear program than resolve them.

To reach a new nuclear understanding with Iran will require a deeper understanding of Iranian calculations and security concerns, which the editorial board too readily dismisses. They claim that committing not to strike Iran amid negotiations would be giving away “too much leverage” for the United States. Yet it is a highly reasonable expectation that one party will not be actively bombed by another when negotiating during peacetime. It is all the more understandable given that President Trump okayed Israel’s attack on Iran in the middle of negotiations in June before joining them, imperiling any near-term diplomatic prospects. 

Meanwhile, many in Iran are undoubtedly arguing that inviting international inspectors in, including to determine the location of its uranium stockpile, would not just be giving away “too much leverage” but actively endangering the nation, particularly absent a security guarantee. Otherwise, Iran would be at risk of providing certainty that future attacks would be more successful than the round of strikes in June. Whether a diplomatic process can be resuscitated will not be determined by chest thumping, as demonstrated by the threats pervasive in the Washington Post editorial, but whether any modicum of trust can be restored following U.S. violations of the 2015 nuclear deal and this summer’s bombing campaign that prematurely ended earlier negotiations. 

Today, Washington, DC is proof positive that endless war abroad is corrosive to American democracy at home, with the streets literally militarized in service of the whims of President Trump. Such an outcome should be unthinkable, yet it has become normalized by those who ignore the Constitution whenever it might pose a speedbump to the forever wars abroad. Rather than warn foreign nations that their actions invite “more U.S. bombing,” the Editorial Board must insist that the current administration follow the law, and warn against any further move toward a potentially disastrous war with Iran without explicit authorization from Congress and the United Nations.

"We can't get totally involved in all that. We can't run ourselves, let's face it."

Instead, he consistently indicated he did not want a war and favored a diplomatic resolution.

Of course, after Netanyahu launched a surprise attack on Iran in the midst of Trump's nuclear talks with Iran in June, he became the first U.S. president since Jimmy Carter to authorize direct U.S. military action in Iran in June – a reversal from his campaign pledges and past hesitations. Israel started the war with Iran but needed the U.S. to finish it. And all indications are Israel is not done – and the U.S. will be pulled in again, becoming "totally involved" in whatever designs Netanyahu ultimately has for Iran.

While Trump's interest in full-scale Bush-Cheney-style regime change on Iran appears to remain low, the Israelis are singing a much different tune.

Yesterday, Israeli president Isaac Herzog and the Science Minister Gila Gamliel hosted a "team of experts" working on behalf of the son of the deposed Shah, Reza Pahlavi, on a "transition plan" for Iran.

Even as Israel is increasingly isolated as more experts and states declare its slaughter of Palestinians a genocide, figures like Pahlavi are keen on Israel “liberating” Iranians — by bombing them too. Famously, Pahlavi refused to criticize Israel's war on Iran that killed hundreds of Iranian civilians. "I don't think it was the intention of the Israeli government to attack civilians," he has said, even as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch say Israel likely committed war crimes on Iranians.

The Pahlavists know better than to bite the hand that feeds them – as Intelligence Minister, Gamliel orchestrated an online influence campaign to bolster Pahlavi during the Women, Life, Freedom movement, vilifying and marginalizing other Iranian voices and bringing him renewed prominence, at least among the Iranian diaspora. Unsurprisingly, the second step in the Pahlavi "transition plan" is to recognize Israel.

Collapse, Not Change

But is Israel's open support for Iran's would-be king a signal that it truly seeks a regime change war to replace the Islamic Republic with a Pahlavi regime?

During the June war, Israeli officials inferred – and Defense Minister Israel Katz openly stated — that removing the regime is necessary to realize Israel's strategic objectives. But while these officials have also made clear the war on Iran is far from over, regime change is likely not on the Israeli agenda. Regime collapse is. And, as with the June war, it will likely be the U.S. that is on the hook to clean up the mess.

Based on Israel's reported attempts at regime decapitation during its 12-day war, including an attack that nearly killed Iran's President and members of the National Security Council, the aim appears not to be to replace the Islamic Republic with a friendlier government but to collapse the state entirely – and ensure it cannot emerge as a rival to Israel. While the Israelis have boosted figures like Pahlavi and coordinated with the MEK and other extremist groups, these are low cost measures that spread Israel’s bets and keep any independent Iranian opposition movement leaderless – not investments in serious governing alternatives.

Implementing a plan to actually remove a regime and facilitate a democratic transition – or install a new leader – would be an immensely costly and fraught commitment for Israel. But the Pottery Barn rule works differently for Israel. If they break it, the U.S. buys it. If Israel's plan is ultimately to collapse Iran and turn it into a failed state with symbolic support for "transition plans", it will be the U.S., not Israel, that will assume the costs of the ensuing refugee crises, extremist sanctuaries, economic collapse, and endless military commitments.

Israel has been allowed to set the agenda for American foreign policy in the Middle East by successive administrations, with the U.S. providing unconditional military and diplomatic support even as Israel undertakes steps against stated U.S. policy preferences. When Netanyahu decided to start a war with Iran (aimed as much at neutralizing Trump's Iran diplomacy as neutralizing Iran's nuclear program), the U.S. was on the hook to finish it as American interceptor systems were staggeringly depleted.

Unless Trump makes explicit that the 12-day war was just that, the U.S. risks signing up for a regime change installment plan.

Trump may not want to get involved in a major war or militarized regime change, but he is being led directly down that path. The U.S. cannot continue to be passive observers as Israel calls the shots until it’s time to bail out Israel after its bad decisions. Unless Trump now believes that the U.S. should be in the business of regime change wars and nation building, he must make explicit to Israel that the 12-day war was just that, and the U.S. did not sign up for the regime change installment plan.

And yet, after nearly thirty years of Netanyahu constantly insisting that Iran is always on the brink of a bomb, the crisis is not over.

Today, Europe admitted the truth:

The crisis isn’t over. It’s worse.

Britain, France, and Germany announced they are triggering “snapback” at the UN. That means reinstating sanctions from before the Obama-era nuclear deal — the deal that rolled back and limited Iran’s program. In other words: Europe is burying that deal for good.

How We Got Here

In 2018, Donald Trump tore up the Iran nuclear agreement that had been ratified by the U.S., Europe, China, and Russia at the UN Security Council in 2015. At the time, Iran was making every concession required. And still, the U.S. reimposed crushing sanctions.

At the time, Europe promised to resist. It sent strongly worded letters. It set up special channels to supposedly bypass illegal U.S. sanctions. But Europe’s banks and companies folded, cutting Iran off.

So Iran began clawing back its own concessions, breaking out of the limits of the nuclear deal piece by piece — applying counter-pressure of its own.

“Trump tore up the deal. Europe folded. Iran pushed back.”

The June War

Ultimately, Iran’s program continued to grow and Joe Biden failed to fulfill his promise to return to the deal that Trump had abandoned. When Trump returned to office, he began his own negotiations towards a new deal with Iran. And then Netanyahu attacked.

Netanyahu finally got to cross bombing Iran off his bucket list — and he did it in the middle of U.S.–Iran talks that some believe were close to a breakthrough.

Hundreds of civilians were killed. The U.S. dropped its biggest bombs on Iran’s nuclear sites, but only set the program back by months. The world no longer knows where Iran’s nuclear stockpile is.

Inspectors are gone.

Oversight is gone.

And diplomacy may be gone with it.

“The bombs set Iran back by months. The war may have set diplomacy back forever.”

Europe Caves

Now, Europe has triggered snapback — a mechanism that was built into the agreement to allow any of the UN Security Council powers to unravel it and reimpose the sanctions and demands from prior to the 2015 agreement.

There is now a 30-day window for some kind of agreement to be reached to prolong or avoid snapback. But short of a breakthrough, Europe will have caved completely.

By snapping back sanctions, Europe will erase the Obama deal, but it also threatens to erase any notion of a rules-based order for non-proliferation. And it will fully signed onto the Trump–Netanyahu playbook.

The sanctions themselves are less important. Yes, these are broad, crippling sanctions that have done nothing but crush ordinary Iranians for decades. But because the U.S. was already enforcing these measures unilaterally — and Europe accepted this — the reimposition of these measures at the UN are mostly symbolic.

The difference is this: before, the U.S. was imposing the sanctions illegally, in violation of the nuclear deal and the UN Security Council. Now, the Security Council is poised to endorse Trump and Netanyahu’s decision.

And that symbolism may be devastating for diplomacy. Europe is out as mediator — even if its role had largely been kabuki theater because of its inability to stand up to Washington. The U.S. is marching to Netanyahu’s drum. And there may be no one left to stop the slide to a wider war.

“Europe just signed onto Trump and Netanyahu’s playbook.”

The Choice Ahead

Here’s the truth: Americans don’t want that war.

Not Democrats.

Not Republicans.

Not the president’s own base.

So the question is: Will Washington listen? Can we force Washington to listen? Or will we stumble into Netanyahu’s next war?

The answer depends on us. On whether we can turn public opposition into actual policy. On whether we can push our government to listen to Americans rather than Netanyahu — and to actually negotiate, before it’s too late.

“Americans don’t want another Middle East war. Washington needs to hear it — loud and clear.”