Iran at a crossroads: Post-war challenges and the future of Khamenei’s regime

Twelve days of war between Iran, Israel, and the United States have left a battered but unbroken Islamic Republic, now standing at what Foreign Policy aptly frames as a “true crossroads.” In its comprehensive post-ceasefire analysis, the publication outlines how Tehran faces profound challenges—economic devastation, ideological recalibration, and geopolitical isolation—all while navigating the unresolved dilemma of its nuclear ambition.

At the heart of Foreign Policy’s argument lies the notion that this war, though short-lived, marks a turning point for the regime in Tehran. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s absence from public view during the war has only deepened questions about the continuity of power and the regime’s internal cohesion. While the government has projected nationalist unity, including rhetoric from President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the article argues that these may be tactical adjustments, not genuine reforms.

Militarily, the Israeli and American strikes—targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities and ballistic missile infrastructure—have exposed Tehran’s vulnerabilities. Significantly, Israel’s choice to largely avoid attacking Iran’s domestic repression machinery reveals that regime change is not a primary goal. Still, the late-stage strikes on security institutions like the Basij and Evin Prison served as warnings. The message: continued provocation could trigger a broader campaign.

Economically, the war has pushed an already struggling population deeper into despair. Foreign Policy highlights that 13 million Iranians lost income due to the conflict, compounding long-standing grievances over poverty, inflation, and inequality. With no clear postwar recovery plan, the regime risks social unrest. Yet, in typical fashion, it has opted for crackdowns over concessions—arresting alleged collaborators and targeting ethnic and religious minorities.

One of the article’s most striking insights is the ideological pivot from revolutionary Islam to Iranian nationalism. Foreign Policy sees this shift as an attempt to rally the public around "national dignity" rather than Islamist dogma, notably omitting references to Islam and Palestine in Khamenei’s rare wartime addresses. While this nationalist turn may offer short-term cohesion, it does not resolve deep-seated legitimacy issues.

On the nuclear front, Tehran’s long-standing strategy of ambiguity has reached its limit. The war exposed how nuclear hedging has failed to prevent strikes or earn strategic deterrence. The article suggests Iran is more likely to pursue covert deterrence now, quietly rebuilding and dispersing its nuclear infrastructure. Staying within the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty may no longer offer sufficient protection.

In its closing reflections, Foreign Policy dismisses the prospect of external regime change and instead underscores the potential for internal transformation. As in the aftermath of the 2009 Green Movement, political splits could reopen avenues for reform—but only if the leadership dares to change course.

Ultimately, the article paints a picture of a regime trapped between the allure of prideful defiance and the necessity of pragmatic recalibration. Whether Iran emerges from this conflict weakened or redefined will depend not on its missiles or slogans, but on its willingness to reckon with its own contradictions.

By Vugar Khalilov