NYN | Articles
By Jamal bin Majid Al-Kindi
Strategic deception is the phrase that best describes the blatant Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
This deception was orchestrated by the United States at the highest levels of its political leadership. On June 13, the world was stunned by a major Israeli attack on Iran, taking place at a time when negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program were ongoing with the American side. The previous five rounds had been positive from both parties, and preparations were underway for a sixth round in Muscat.
So what happened? How was the first strike absorbed in less than 24 hours? And how did Iran’s missile response alter the military and political equation on the ground? This article attempts to answer these questions and analyze both the current situation and what may come next.
Inside Iran, as well as globally, the Israeli assault came as a surprise—only two days before the agreed-upon Muscat round of negotiations.
This is what we call “strategic deception,” as the Americans were aware of the zero hour and had long been preparing for it. They gave the green light to begin the aggression while talks were still ongoing. The aim was to leverage the element of surprise and execute a meticulously planned operation aimed at regime change in Iran, primarily through internal movements aided by the Israeli Mossad.
The Israeli aggression was largely security and intelligence-oriented, carried out through cells embedded within Iran for over eight months.
Approximately 80% of the initial strike on Iran consisted of internal security operations using drones launched from within the country. In the early hours of June 13, the Israeli assault began with dozens of drones whose mission was to assassinate political and military leaders. At the top of the hit list was Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
The second phase of the plan aimed to eliminate 400 high-ranking political, military, and media figures in the Iranian regime. This would then trigger chaos in the country and activate anti-regime sleeper cells, supported by the Mossad, to take control of vital state institutions—causing a total power vacuum and leading to the collapse of the state from within. This effort was to be backed logistically by anti-regime Iranian groups in the north, who had been supplied with advanced weapons and communications gear.
However, the plan failed before entering its second phase due to the survival of the Supreme Leader, although several top military commanders from the army and the IRGC were killed. Iran’s response was swift—within less than 24 hours. The Iranian political and military leadership absorbed the shock, particularly after the Supreme Leader survived and moved quickly to appoint replacements for the fallen leaders.
A new phase of response to the Israeli aggression began. As we’ve noted, the Israeli strategy had heavily relied on the security dimension to trigger internal regime change. Iran quickly regained its capacity to launch missile strikes and announced Operation “True Promise 3”, whose military repercussions are still affecting the structure of the Zionist entity.
As the saying goes, “Sometimes misfortunes bring blessings.” The Israeli assault exposed many internal agents—both Iranian and foreign—to Iranian security services. Iranian state TV now announces daily arrests of spy networks along with large caches of drones intended to target high-level Iranian figures.
The Zionist entity has realized its aggression failed with the collapse of the element of surprise and the failure to achieve its objectives. The plan wasn’t just about targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities to prevent high-level uranium enrichment; the true goal was regime change—thus the strong focus on security and military components.
That security objective failed. The Iranian regime remains intact, and the perceived internal threat has decreased as Iranian security forces dismantled sleeper cells. The Iranian people, across political and ethnic lines, have rallied around the unity of the nation in the face of Israeli aggression. On the military front, Israel cannot, on its own, eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities or cripple its program without direct American involvement.
This led to a critical new phase in response to Israeli aggression. After the failure of the internal security component, Iran launched a missile war by striking deep into Israeli territory through Operation “True Promise 3.” The battle has now moved into a missile-driven aerial confrontation. The question remains: Can Israel’s home front withstand such losses?
Iranian missiles and drones have been striking the entirety of occupied Palestinian territory for seven consecutive days in 15 waves, each containing multiple and varied missiles, with escalation in both type and quantity. The impact is clear on the ground, with unprecedented destruction caused by Iranian missiles—acknowledged by Israeli media and confirmed through direct observation.
In this context, former U.S. Army officer Scott Ritter stated that within just a few days, Israel had lost the Port of Haifaand its oil refinery, its airport had been shut down, and its military and intelligence bases were under daily attack. He added that Israel’s economic infrastructure is also being targeted, saying, “Israel is being hit hard—militarily and economically. Don’t believe it’s strong.”
Israel cannot endure a missile war with Iran due to the geographic disparity between the two. Israel is a small entity compared to vast Iran, and missile strikes affect it significantly due to its limited internal resilience. This became evident within days of the Iranian strikes. In contrast, Iran’s vast geography makes it much less vulnerable to similar attacks.
Given the new realities on the ground after the failure to overthrow the Iranian regime internally, the equation has shifted due to Iran’s missile power. The Zionist entity has begun to cry out and seek help from the United States. However, the American president remains hesitant to provide direct support—such as deploying B-52 strategic bombers to strike Iranian nuclear facilities.
This hesitation is reflected in the president’s contradictory and shifting statements—especially after the powerful Iranian missile strike that included hypersonic and heavy missiles, which U.S. THAAD systems failed to intercept. These strikes caused significant damage to sensitive areas in Tel Aviv and Be’er Sheva.
This strike sent a direct Iranian message: any American intervention will be met with strikes against U.S. assets, particularly in maritime deployments. The U.S. has witnessed how advanced Iranian missiles successfully bypassed American and Israeli air defenses—and more surprises may still be in store.
The equation has changed. After initially threatening direct involvement, President Trump has now given diplomacy a two-week window. This effectively ends the regime-change project and confirms the failure of the Israeli operation.
Following this statement, the world now has a chance to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through peaceful means—a path supported by most nations. Israel’s actions appear to have been a reckless gamble aimed at preserving a narcissistic leadership figure—at the expense of the Israeli public, which is beginning to reject this path.
In conclusion, the events have shown that miscalculations and strategic deception cannot withstand the will of the people or their capacity to respond. Iran’s missiles were not just a reaction—they marked a turning point in the balance of deterrence. Between the failure of aggression and the opportunity for de-escalation, the final word will rest with the wisdom of political decision-making. The coming days promise to be full of developments, and we hope to witness a political agreement that ends this crisis.
The author is an Omani writer and activist.
