On May 26, 2026, Israel Hayom, one of the newspapers with the largest circulation in Israel, published the following: "We are not finished with Iran. We are just getting started." This statement marked a turning point in the history of covert operations since the era of the Cold War. For the first time, a state was openly and almost horizontally celebrating a repeated attempt at regime change against another sovereign state. In combination with subsequent disclosures by international media, such as Yedioth Ahronoth, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Ynetnews, the operational plan, the involved actors, and the strategic goals behind the events of violence in Iran in January 2026 became more clearly visible.
Operational framework
The plan of the Mossad constituted one of the most sophisticated examples of hybrid warfare, exceeding the limits of classical military doctrines. The strategy relied on two main axes: on the one hand, the "from above" deconstruction of the state apparatus through targeted assassinations of leading figures and the defamation of the political elite, and on the other hand, the "from below" destabilization through the instigation of social unrest and armed rebellion. With the simultaneous activation of both of these levels, the United States and Israel aimed at plunging the Iranian state structure into conditions of complete chaos. The first level of the plan concerned a highly sophisticated engineering of perception management, which was implemented through a secret "influence operations unit" that the Mossad had reportedly created in 2021. This system, known as the "poisoning machine," targeted high ranking Iranian officials through disinformation and defamation campaigns circulated on social networks. One of the most characteristic examples of its effectiveness was the removal of the then senior Iranian official Rostam Qasemi from his position. A photograph of Qasemi with a woman who was not his wife, taken during his visit to Malaysia, was leaked by Rostam Qasemi, resulting in his forced resignation within a few days (Israel Hayom, May 28, 2026). According to the Mossad official "O.", such types of operations were "much cheaper and simpler than an assassination." This constituted only the visible side of a broader psychological warfare, which aimed at the gradual erosion of trust toward the state apparatus. In its modern version, war is not conducted exclusively at borders, on battlefields, or in airspace. The new field has transferred to mobile phones, to the algorithms of social networks, to personal data leaks, to economic expectations, and to a generalized atmosphere of fear. Under this sense, it is about the definition of war in the digital age: politics is no longer conducted by other means, but through psychological and cognitive tools.
"The Secret Army": Perhaps the most daring element of the military leg of the plan was the structure of the so called "secret army" that the Mossad had created within Iran. According to a report by Ynetnews (June 1, 2026), Iranian citizens who had been trained in Israel returned to their country to assume critical roles in the opening phase of Operation "Rising Lion," having lived for years as ordinary citizens, awaiting the activation of their mission. The main duty of these groups was the paralysis of the Iranian air defense, so that the Israeli Air Force could obtain freedom of movement over Tehran and target the supreme command of the Revolutionary Guards. Its director, David Barnea, monitored the night of the operation from the command center in the Kirya, together with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and reportedly reacted with satisfaction to the flawless synchronization between the agents in the field and the air forces, which "operated like clockwork." However, as was proven subsequently, this image of success might have reflected a strategic illusion.
Psychological warfare: One of the most unusual tactics of the operation was the psychological warfare operations recorded by the Wall Street Journal. Agents of the Mossad reportedly contacted Iranian security commanders, addressing personal threats both against them and their families. In one leak of a telephone conversation, an agent is reportedly saying to an Iranian police commander: "We know everything about you. You are on our black list. I called you to warn you to stop whatever you are doing. If you do not do it, your fate will be the same as your leader's." One of the main targets of this tactic was Ali Larijani, a prominent political figure in Iran. He reportedly responded to the threat, which included the ultimatum "Leave the country within 12 hours or you will be killed," stating: "I gave them and Netanyahu an answer worthy of them" (Iranian state media, July 2025). This stance highlighted, already from the beginning, the limits of the basic assessment of the Mossad that the Iranian state apparatus would collapse under pressure.
The Kurds: The most controversial and simultaneously most fragile aspect of the plan was the scenario of armed intervention that remained known as the "Kurdish option." According to an analytical report by the New York Times (March 2026), it predicted that armed groups such as the PJAK, the Komala, and the PDKI, based in Iraqi Kurdistan, would infiltrate western Iran with air support from the USA and Israel, advancing toward Tehran. However, this plan was confronted by Iran with strategic preparation before it was even put into implementation. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps gathered strong forces in the western provinces, sealing the borders with heavy weapons, observation posts, and extensive use of unmanned aircraft. At the same time, Iran launched preemptive strikes with ballistic missiles and suicide drones against militia bases and logistical support centers in northern Iraq (such as in the Alana valley and in Khalidan, in the Erbil province), with the goal of neutralizing the threat at its source. As the then head of Israeli military intelligence, Tamir Hayman, has recognized: "The central element of the entire sequence had to start with a Kurdish invasion." However, the fact that this leg was deconstructed from the outset by Iran weakened the cohesion of the entire plan.
The Ahmadinejad scenario: The most extreme, questionable, and dark aspect of the operation was the idea of communication with the exiled former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in case of a potential collapse of the regime. This plan, which was confirmed by Heiman, was characterized by a former head of the Mossad as "the most absurd idea I have ever heard." American officials were even more categorical. The director of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, characterized the Israeli assessment that a regime change and a subsequent rebellion could manifest immediately after an American attack as "farcical." The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, formulated it even more bluntly, stating: "With other words, it is nonsense" (Daily Mail, April 7, 2026). This intense skepticism constituted the clearest indication of the strategic dissonance between the allies, as well as the distance of the plan from reality.
The anatomy of the defeat: the sources of the strategic success of Iran
The collapse of this complex plan, which had been designed and developed over a series of years, cannot be attributed only to operational failures. On the contrary, it seems to arise mainly from three fundamental ontological misinterpretations of the USA and Israel regarding Iran. In the modern political history of Western Asia, Iran does not operate simply as one more state, but as a particular geopolitical actor with deep historical memory, cultural continuity, social resilience, and strategic patience. Under this sense, every effort of external intervention cannot be seen exclusively as a military or covert operation, but as a frontal confrontation with the history, the identity, the sovereignty, and the cultural will of a country. Indeed, the statement of Senator Lindsey Graham ("I firmly believe that 2026 could be the year that ends a conflict of 2,000 years") captures this perspective. The issue is presented not as a situational crisis, but as a conflict with a historical depth of many centuries. The most basic error of the attackers was that they treated Iran as a conventional nation state. In reality, it is about a political and cultural structure with roots in an ancient civilization of thousands of years, with a strong collective memory and institutional continuity. The assumption that an external power could easily manipulate it constitutes, in the best case, a form of imperialist epistemological arrogance. As the columnist of the New York Times, Nury Vittachi, noted, the Iranian people did not respond as expected during the critical phase of the plan. On the contrary, the support toward the Islamic Republic and national sovereignty was strengthened as the external pressure evolved. The fact that no external power can construct an authentic and viable popular movement in a deeply rooted society was confirmed for one more time on the streets of Iran. The intense reaction of Benjamin Netanyahu in a security meeting (when it was verified that the assurances of the Mossad about "internal unrest in Iran within a few days" were not verified) constituted the psychological capture of this strategic blindness.
Underestimation of technological hegemony and the Isfahan fiasco
The second critical mistake was the underestimation of the technological and military capabilities of Iran, which had been developed despite decades of sanctions. Tehran had built an asymmetric deterrent infrastructure, based on advanced ballistic missiles, unmanned aircraft (drones), and sophisticated air defense systems. The tangible proof of this capability was seen in the operational fiasco near Isfahan in April 2026, which severely struck American military prestige. The operation started with the shooting down of an American F-15E fighter by the Iranian air defense and evolved into a large scale operation of special forces, under the pretext of rescuing a trapped officer, but, according to Iranian sources, with the nuclear installation of Isfahan as the real target. However, the Iranian intelligence services and the Revolutionary Guards immediately detected the infiltration attempt and cordoned off the area. At the end of the operation, the USA reportedly lost 8 to 12 of their most advanced assets, among which 1 A-10 Thunderbolt, 2 MC-130J transport aircraft, 4 MH-6/AH-6 helicopters, and 1 MQ-9 Reaper UAV. The effort of the Pentagon to downplay the losses with expressions like "we got stuck in the sand" did not manage to hide the magnitude of the blow. The comparison by Iranian military representatives with the failed operation of the USA in the Tabas desert in 1980 (Operation "Eagle Claw") underlined the sense of historical repetition.
Success of counterintelligence and strengthening of the internal front
Iran has dismantled numerous espionage networks on the so called "invisible front," through effective counterintelligence operations against infiltration efforts by foreign intelligence services. Within this framework, a network of 20 people who were leaking military and strategic coordinates to foreign services was dismantled in Urmia, while on a nationwide level, over 30 spies and agents with connections to Israel and the USA were arrested. The Iranian security forces, with documented evidence, also arrested critical personalities such as Mojtaba Qian and Kouros Keivani, who were reportedly leaking information about nuclear and military installations. At the same time, hundreds of Starlink devices used for illegal data transfer were confiscated, while through the digital surveillance system "Saham," the espionage networks were financially disorganized. The most important element was the substantial weakening of the "illegal network" of the Mossad, through large scale operations that also targeted individuals who had been activated during the demonstrations. In this framework, the statement of the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abbas Araghchi, on January 12, 2026, that "there are many documents and proofs that document the involvement of the USA and Israel in the recent terrorist actions," as well as that armed agents infiltrated demonstrations feeding the violence, constituted a diplomatic confirmation of these claims.
Transformation
The account of the Iran–2025/2026 war recorded a heavy strategic defeat for the attacker. Despite close censorship, Israel recorded 12 dead and 1,473 injured, while the USA 13 victims and over 200 injured. On the contrary, neither the Iranian political structure collapsed, nor a popular uprising occurred, nor the planned puppet regime was established. Instead, Iran strengthened its geopolitical position, threatening even with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, putting global energy markets at risk. The conflict expanded regionally, with attacks by Hezbollah against Israel. The USA found themselves strategically trapped in a war that was easy in the beginning, but extremely difficult in the termination. The victory of Iran was not limited to the military dimension. It also constituted a triumph of strategic patience and political resilience. The USA and Israel found themselves confronted with a reality where their costly conventional superiority was neutralized by economically efficient asymmetric means, such as ballistic missiles and unmanned aircraft.
The endless threat and the judgment of History
The title in Israel Hayom and the statement of the Mossad director, Barnea, that "the mission of Israel will be completed only when the regime changes," imply that the conflict is not treated as a definitive end, but as the beginning of a new phase. Indeed, the newly elected leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, in a written message published on May 26, 2026 on the occasion of the Hajj, referred to the prediction of his father and Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, on September 9, 2015, according to which "Israel will not reach to see the next 25 years." At the same time, he emphasized that Israel seems to be entering the final stage of its historical course. According to the calculation attributed to Ali Khamenei, the end of Israel is placed around 2040, while, provided that the reference to "15 years" attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei is taken into account, the time estimation shifts approximately to 2041. This specific positioning is presented not only as a threat of military conflict, but also as a declaration of the intention of Iran to continue a long existential confrontation, both in direct and indirect forms of conflict, with strategic depth and duration. At the same time, the model of hybrid warfare in the Middle East continues to operate as a means of influence in regions where direct military presence is limited, through intelligence networks, indirect actions, and psychological operations. In this framework, it is supported that Iran has strengthened its position through multiple fronts of confrontation and that the confronting of common pressures from Western powers has strengthened its morale and strategic narrative. This stance is projected from certain sides as a form of resistance against the international order of things, which is criticized for arrogance, inequalities, and political or institutional scandals that have occupied international public opinion. At the same time, it is considered that it has created feelings of sympathy in sections of global public opinion. However, this development verifies, according to this reading, a timeless historical observation: that civilizations with deep roots and historical continuity are not easily altered through external interventions. Under this prism, the Islamic Republic of Iran is presented as a state that, through its social cohesion and its strategic resilience, not only survived in conditions of intense pressure, but converted the conflict into a narrative of resistance and political legitimation on an international level.
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments