Iran launched direct strikes against Israel over the weekend, marking the first time Tehran has hit its adversary not in retaliation for an attack on its own soil, but as a warning over ceasefire violations in Lebanon. The escalation reflects a fundamental shift in Iran’s strategic calculus after US and Israeli military strikes in 2025 and 2026 destroyed its nuclear facilities and killed its supreme leader, according to an analysis published by Middle East Eye on Monday. A broad consensus is now emerging inside Iran that diplomacy without deterrence is a path to vulnerability.
The weekend strikes were not an isolated military maneuver. They were the latest evidence of a doctrine in transformation. Middle East Eye reported on June 9 that four major strategic shifts have taken hold inside Iran since the 2025 and 2026 conflicts.
The first is the collapse of a strategy built on restraint and engagement. Despite what the outlet described as a broad consensus that Iran had complied with the 2015 nuclear deal, accepting extensive restrictions and inspections, the US unilaterally withdrew from the agreement in 2018. The military attacks followed years later.
Confidence in diplomacy has been severely damaged. For many Iranians, restraint is now increasingly viewed not as protection, but as vulnerability. The policy says one thing.
The reality says another. The second shift is a collapse in public trust toward the United States. While Iran’s leadership has long been skeptical of Washington, public opinion was once different.
A Gallup survey conducted after the signing of the nuclear agreement a decade ago found that 68 percent of Iranians believed their leaders had negotiated a good deal. Sixty-six percent expected economic improvement. Fifty-one percent anticipated better relations with the US.
Those numbers are a distant memory now. The debate inside Iran is no longer primarily about centrifuges or enrichment levels. The central question has become: if Iran accepts new restrictions, what guarantees exist that a future US administration will not abandon the agreement, or that another military confrontation will not follow?
For many Iranians, the current crisis is less a nuclear dispute than a crisis of trust. Third, ideology has given way to nationalism. For decades, confrontation with the US and Israel was framed primarily in ideological terms.
The recent conflict appears to have produced a different dynamic. While many Iranians remain opposed to war, sanctions, and isolation, public sentiment has increasingly shifted toward a form of everyday nationalism. External military pressure has reinforced broader feelings of national identity and collective solidarity.
This trend may become one of the most enduring political consequences of the wars. Fourth, and perhaps most critically, the calculus around deterrence has changed. Even voices that previously advocated de-escalation now emphasize the need for credible deterrent capabilities.
This does not necessarily imply support for nuclear weapons. Rather, it reflects a growing belief that no political agreement can remain sustainable unless Iran possesses sufficient means to deter future attacks. That shift played out in real-time over the weekend.
Iran launched strikes against Israel over what it called continuing assaults on its ally Lebanon. The move marked a new threshold. Tehran was no longer waiting to be hit first.
The human cost is. Middle East Eye noted that the loss of Iran’s supreme leader, military commanders, regional partners, and hundreds of civilians has created a powerful collective memory. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was not only the leader of a state.
He was also one of the most prominent Shia religious authorities, with millions of followers worldwide. For the first time in modern history, a leading Shia religious authority was killed in military action by foreign states. This is not an event that many Iranians or Shia communities around the world are likely to forget.
After the killing of General Qassem Soleimani in 2020, US officials openly expressed concerns over possible Iranian retaliation. Recent conflicts have led not only to the killings of numerous senior Iranian military leaders, but also to the assassinations of key figures within the broader axis of resistance, including Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas negotiator Ismail Haniyeh. It would be unwise for policymakers and security institutions to dismiss the potential long-term security consequences of these events.
The economic toll extends beyond Iran’s borders. Middle East Eye reported that the US-Israeli wars on Iran inflicted significant damage on its nuclear and military facilities. But the ongoing conflict has also imposed enormous costs on the US, including more than $1 trillion in expenditures, significant damage to US military assets, global economic disruption, and substantial civilian and military casualties.
At the same time, the US-Israeli campaign has achieved few of its stated objectives. It did not eliminate Iran’s missile capabilities. It did not end its nuclear program.
It did not facilitate political change. What the wars did change, however, was Iran’s strategic calculus. Following the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, Iran’s security doctrine rested on three pillars: strengthening indigenous military capabilities, achieving self-sufficiency in nuclear technology and domestic fuel production, and extending deterrence beyond Iran’s borders through its regional axis of resistance.
The strategic impact of the 2025 and 2026 wars may ultimately exceed even that of Saddam Hussein’s invasion, since the US-Israeli assaults were widely perceived inside Iran as direct threats to national survival and sovereignty. A revised strategic framework appears to be emerging around four principles. The first can be summarized as “security for all or security for none.” After the 2025 US-Israeli attacks, Iran’s military response was largely confined to Israel and a single American base in the Gulf.
During the 2026 conflict, however, Iran’s strategic calculations expanded to include US military installations across the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and broader global economic interests. From Tehran’s perspective, security can no longer be treated as a unilateral privilege. Second, public opinion has become a new key factor.
Before the wars, Iran’s strategic debate largely revolved around two concepts: the battlefield and diplomacy. The recent wars added a third: the street. The wave of nationalism that emerged was reflected in large public gatherings across major cities.
While supporting national defense, many participants also conveyed a message to policymakers that excessive trust in negotiations with Washington is no longer acceptable. As a result, Iranian diplomacy today increasingly operates under the influence of both military institutions and public opinion. Third, the emerging consensus emphasizes deterrence through a combination of instruments: stronger military capabilities, preservation of nuclear expertise, continued regional partnerships, and incorporation of the Strait of Hormuz into broader security calculations.
The result is a more comprehensive understanding of deterrence than the one that existed before the wars. Despite widespread mistrust, diplomacy remains far from dead. Although some Iranian political figures fear that another military confrontation may be on the horizon, significant support for diplomacy still exists within Iran.
What has changed is not the desire for negotiations, but the expectations surrounding any future agreement. If the nuclear deal focused primarily on nuclear restrictions, many in Tehran now argue that any future agreement must contain three key elements: nonproliferation within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that protects Iran’s right to enrich uranium, meaningful economic benefits through substantial sanctions relief, and credible assurances that this military conflict will not be repeated. Why It Matters: The transformation of Iran’s strategic doctrine from one of restraint to one of comprehensive deterrence directly affects global energy markets, regional stability, and the security of US military assets across the Middle East.
For working families in the US and Europe, the economic disruption from any future Strait of Hormuz closure would translate into higher fuel prices and supply chain chaos. The collapse of trust in diplomacy means that future negotiations will require far more concrete guarantees than Washington has historically been willing to offer, raising the stakes for any potential deal. - Iran’s weekend strikes on Israel marked a doctrinal shift from retaliatory to preemptive deterrence, triggered by ceasefire violations in Lebanon. - Public trust in the US has collapsed inside Iran, with nationalism replacing ideology as the dominant political force after the 2025 and 2026 wars. - The killing of Ayatollah Khamenei and senior commanders has created a collective memory that will shape Iranian policy for a generation. The path forward is narrow.
Middle East Eye concluded that despite the deep mistrust generated by recent wars, diplomacy remains the only viable path forward, because neither Iran, nor the US, nor the region as a whole can escape the realities of coexistence. The central challenge is in breaking a decades-long cycle of crisis, sanctions, negotiations, agreements, collapse, and renewed conflict. Neither military force nor economic pressure has resolved it.
Unless Washington and its regional allies recognize that security, trust, deterrence, and diplomacy are now inseparable in Tehran’s eyes, future agreements are likely to remain temporary. The cycle of confrontation will continue. The next move belongs to Washington.
Key Takeaways
— Iran’s weekend strikes on Israel marked a doctrinal shift from retaliatory to preemptive deterrence, triggered by ceasefire violations in Lebanon.
— Public trust in the US has collapsed inside Iran, with nationalism replacing ideology as the dominant political force after the 2025 and 2026 wars.
— Any future nuclear agreement must now include sanctions relief, enrichment rights, and credible security assurances to be viable in Tehran.
— The killing of Ayatollah Khamenei and senior commanders has created a collective memory that will shape Iranian policy for a generation.
Source: Middle East Eye
