Following the ceasefire on June 24 that brought the Iran-Israel conflict to a temporary halt, Iran has entered a phase of introspection. This 12-day war, which brought the country to the brink of chaos, has prompted extensive evaluations among Iran’s political and military elites. Understanding how Iranians are discussing these events—particularly in relation to their defense doctrine and capabilities, political system, foreign policy, and especially the nuclear issue—is crucial for forecasting the country’s political trajectory.
State-Society Unity
One of the initial outcomes of the conflict has been a narrowing of the gap that had widened in recent years between the state and society. In the face of a foreign enemy’s attack, Iranians have largely suspended their criticisms of the state. The state, in turn, appears to have softened its pre-war posture toward the public. Debates over the hijab have been set aside. During the conflict, for example, a female presenter on state television called for national unity beyond daily political differences, stating:
“On this day when the Zionist regime has attacked our country, there is no longer hijab or no hijab, reformist or conservative, cleric or non-cleric—today, we have only one homeland: Iran.”
The attack by Israel is thus viewed not merely as an assault on the Islamic Republic’s regime, but on the Iranian nation as a whole. When the presenter declared that “there is no cleric or non-cleric today,” she was emphasizing that the target of the aggression was not just the political system but Iran itself.
In another symbolic gesture, On TV, affiliated with the Islamic Development Organization (سازمان تبلیغات اسلامی), aired a nationalistic song by Moein—a popular artist who has lived abroad since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This was a surprising and unexpected move that many did not anticipate.
With the onset of the month of Muharram, Iranians have also adapted their mourning rituals to the current political context. In the elegies recited during these ceremonies, themes of unity, struggle, and nationalism have been emphasized. The chanting of patriotic songs like “Ey Iran” in elegiac style reflects the regime’s need to bolster its theological foundations with nationalistic sentiment.
Iran’s state reflex seems to be aimed at neutralizing criticisms of the Islamic Republic by leaning on nationalist rhetoric during this extraordinary period, thus fostering internal unity through patriotism.
Accounting Under the Shadow of Victory Celebrations
After the ceasefire, the Iranian government sought to generate public enthusiasm and reinforce the system’s legitimacy by organizing victory celebrations. President Masoud Pezeshkian described the outcome as a “historic victory,” while Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that Israel and the United States had lost. Media outlets close to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) conveyed these developments to the public in an epic and ideological tone, portraying the enemy as defeated.
Iranians are fully aware that another Israeli attack is only a matter of time. In this context, maintaining state-society unity is crucial. Iran is also sending a clear message that bombing the country will not bring about regime change. Therefore, the momentum achieved in state-society relations must not be lost.
However, amid this extraordinary atmosphere, the streets have seen intensified control, and a kind of security regime has been activated. Iran still operates in a wartime environment. Around 1,000 individuals accused of collaborating with Mossad have been arrested, with some even executed.
Despite the triumphalist rhetoric, calls for self-criticism should not be overlooked. Former President Hassan Rouhani, in a public statement, congratulated the Iranian people for their resistance but emphasized that the ceasefire is only a transitional period and warned of potential renewed Israeli aggression. He stressed the importance of using this time to rebuild public trust in state institutions and noted that “public trust” is fragile and vulnerable. Rouhani—also the architect of the 2015 nuclear deal—underscored that national unity and trust in the system are the only weapons that can truly “deter the enemy”. His remarks, echoed by other political figures, were prominently featured in reformist and moderate media.
A Tougher Political Tone
Iran’s post-war foreign policy discourse has notably hardened. The Islamic Consultative Assembly (parliament) decided to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and President Pezeshkian subsequently communicated this legislation. The IAEA has drawn criticism from various Iranian political factions, particularly its director Rafael Mariano Grossi, who is accused of issuing politically motivated reports that could justify Israeli attacks.
Iranian officials are now more vocally asserting that their nuclear activities will continue and that this issue is now a matter of national security. Thus, the Israeli and U.S. strikes did not deter Iran’s nuclear efforts. In fact, Iran may be revising its previously cautious stance on nuclear weapons. Some Iranians are openly suggesting that the only way to deter Israeli aggression is by acquiring nuclear arms.
Additionally, after the 12-day conflict, which showcased the strength and deterrence of Iran’s ballistic missile program, Iranian officials have made it clear that this program is not open to negotiation.
It is not only political leaders but also religious scholars who have taken a more hardline stance. In response to statements by former U.S. President Donald Trump during and after the conflict targeting Khamenei, Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi issued a fatwa declaring Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “muharib”—those who wage war against religion. Similarly, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Nouri Hamedani issued a fatwa stating that attacks on Khamenei were tantamount to attacks on Islam.
What stands out is that the post-war positions and rhetoric of Iran’s traditionally hardline military elites have now been embraced by both political and religious leadership. There is still debate over how to overcome the country’s military and strategic shortcomings. What is clear, however, is that the old doctrines no longer suffice, and Iran is in need of a new strategic blueprint. This blueprint appears likely to include new approaches to the nuclear program, missile development, and foreign policy. The warnings of figures like Rouhani and the surge in nationalist rhetoric suggest that a new political orientation may soon emerge domestically as well.
Mustafa Caner, PhD 
Leave a comment