TEHRAN – In an article for the Wall Street Journal Reuel Marc Gerecht and Ray Takeyh argue that the long-standing assumption—that any U.S. strike on Iran would spark mass domestic support for the government and plunge the Middle East into a “forever war”—has been decisively disproven. However, that is not disproven as they claim and there is not just one reason but multiple reasons that suggest otherwise.
The recent Israel–U.S. campaign against Iran cannot be compared to the full-scale occupations of Iraq or Afghanistan. Those invasions involved tens of thousands of troops, widespread infrastructure targets and on-the-ground combat. By contrast, the 12-day operation focused almost exclusively on nuclear and strategic military facilities. In response, Iran launched drones and ballistic missiles which many penetrated Israel’s Iron Dome and other allied defenses—demonstrating a robust, not tepid, counterstrike. This argument collapses once one recognizes that Tehran calibrated its response to match the limited scope of the strikes: precision attacks yield precision responses, not a full scale or “forever war.”
Also, Israel’s tight media controls—such as suppressing footage of damages in Haifa and Tel Aviv—further obscure the scale of destruction Iran achieved, skewing Western perceptions of the conflict’s true intensity.
The Wall Street Journal argues that Tehran failed to galvanize its populace into any meaningful displays of support or mourning. But this assessment ignores a clear shift from street protests to digital and cultural solidarity. By restricting “mobilization” to street protests, the WSJ overlooks a broader spectrum of engagement spanning hashtags, and cultural performances.
During and after the 12-day conflict, grassroots support erupted not only within Iran but across the broader region. Iranian Filmmakers, actors, and singers—many based abroad—posted videos and messages of unity under different hashtags. The symbolic apex came when Iran’s Leader invited a renowned eulogist to perform a eulogy about Iran at a ceremony for the third Shia Imam, drawing millions of viewers. That event, coupled with widespread online campaigns, ignited intergenerational enthusiasm—even among those critical of the government.
The Wall Street Journal contends that Tehran “turned inward, resorting to widespread repression” during and after the 12-day war. Yet during that same period, Iran’s state broadcaster IRIB devoted prime-time slots to debates inviting outspoken critics of the Islamic Republic. Far from silencing dissent, many “anti-establishment” figures inside Iran freely challenged official narratives on social media and.
The article in one way or another urges U.S. policymakers to mount further operations against Iran on the assumption of a fearful Tehran. In reality, the cessation of hostilities after twelve intense days between Iran and Israel reflects strategic calculation rather than capitulation.
By halting kinetic operations, Tehran preserves its core capabilities, buys critical breathing space, and demonstrates restraint in a region where escalation often begets more violence.
This pause underscores Iran’s confidence in weathering future confrontations without overextension. It safeguards vital military assets—missiles, drones, and command structures— reserving them for a moment of its choosing. From this vantage, Iran deliberately employed restraint to recalibrate its posture toward Israel and counter the broader U.S. presence in the Middle East.
Also, Tehran’s pivot toward talks—with the International Atomic Energy Agency, European intermediaries, and even indirect channels to Washington—represents more than mere concession. It embodies Iran’s belief that negotiations can cement its knowledge gains in nuclear energy without further bloodshed. Diplomacy also offers a platform to rally global opinion against renewed sanctions or military strikes, serving as the final refuge for peaceful dispute resolution and the West’s most viable path to impose limits without sparking further conflict.
Years of sanctions have paradoxically sharpened Iran’s economic toolkit rather than broken its will and forced it to substitute for foreign imports. Tehran has cultivated alternative oil customers—most notably China, using local-currency arrangements, and shadow shipping networks to keep crude exports flowing.
Also, it has built sanctions-busting financial channels, from gold-for-oil swaps to informal payment systems that blunt the impact of sanctions. Despite economic challenges, these adaptations have repeatedly cushioned Iran against pressure campaigns. If the UN sanctions are to be triggered while painful, are unlikely to force an outright capitulation and may innovate new evasion tactics.
Iran’s response to mounting Western pressure can be more deepening of its strategic with China and Russia, potentially reshaping the battlefield. This may unlock alternative financial and trade channels that further circumvent U.S. controls. Beijing’s ongoing friction with Washington over tariffs and technology transfers is a good encouragement for Chinese state-owned and private firms to expand their presence in Iran. At the same time, Russia’s war in Ukraine has driven Moscow and Tehran closer together, as both seek to offset extended sanctions. Energy giants like Gazprom and Rosneft are poised to intensify cooperation, and arms deals may surge to sustain military collaboration despite Western embargoes.
This Sino-Russian axis also delivers significant diplomatic dividends. In multilateral forums such as the United Nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Beijing and Moscow routinely challenge or dilute Western sanctions resolutions, raising the political cost of enforcement and signaling that supporting Tehran carries limited repercussions. By capitalizing on these great-power partnerships, Iran turns attempted economic isolation into a manageable challenge—preserving oil exports, attracting critical foreign direct investment, and blunting the impact of any future measures.