The protests that began on Dec. 28, 2026, have taken their place in Iranian history. However, these demonstrations were neither as massive as the Mahsa Amini era nor as widespread as the Green Movement. Most notably, while participation levels remained more limited compared to previous uprisings, this wave was among the harshest in terms of the intensity of violence. Initially, Iranian authorities approached the issue with a degree of understanding. However, following the deployment of armed groups into the field, the unrest was no longer viewed by the Iranian administration as a protest, but rather as an insurgency.

Although the U.S. and Israeli officials refrained from reacting on the first day, statements of support followed in quick succession. According to Israeli press reports, the Netanyahu government's initial reaction was silence, intended to avoid appearing as the sponsor of the protests and thus preventing them from fizzling out. However, this silence was short-lived. It appears that pressure was exerted to compel Iranian authorities to view the protesters directly as foreign intelligence assets, thereby escalating the violence. The Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK) engaged in activities to increase violence in Western Iran. Additionally, the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), certain Baluch organizations in the southeast, and groups linked to them in the northeast, alongside Daesh-Khorasan cells, were activated.

Throughout the protests, fires were set almost everywhere, targeted assassinations and attacks on security forces occurred, and public buildings were assaulted. Civilians suffered heavy casualties; in one tragic instance, a 3-year-old girl burned to death while waiting for her father in a car that was set on fire by demonstrators. Amid this, with social media posts from figures like former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declaring "Mossad is with you," and President Donald Trump's statements backing the demonstrators, Iranian authorities interpreted the events as a continuation of the 12-day war.

Interpreting the events as an "existential threat," Iranian authorities launched a severe crackdown on the crowd gathered on the night of Thursday, Jan. 8, making no distinction between the innocent and the guilty. This resulted in a tableau, leaving thousands dead. Starlink terminals, smuggled into the country to bypass internet blackouts, were first geolocated and then blocked via massive jamming operations. This suggests that Tehran was prepared for such a scenario and, in all likelihood, received support from China to counter it.

US motives to attack Iran

First, it stands as a clear fact that the U.S. and Israel are acting in concert, just as they did during the June attacks. However, Israel is meticulously trying to distance itself this time, employing strategic masking to appear unconnected to the events. This is understandable: Israel seeks both to delay Iranian retaliation and, if attacked, to market this to global public opinion as a defensive war rather than appearing as the aggressor.

The U.S. side initially announced it would launch attacks due to the civilian casualties in the protests. A hasty attempt was made to strike Iran. However, Trump was forced to step back due to Türkiye's diplomatic steps, pressure from the Gulf to avoid a regional war, and the Pentagon security elites' reluctance regarding the costs of unpreparedness and risks to allies. Nevertheless, according to open sources, Trump has instructed that the plan be worked on rapidly.

The issue of attacking Iran entered Trump's agenda alongside the protests. He announced he was sending "aid" to the protesters. As of today, the protests have ended. Yet, Trump continues to demonstrate his intent to attack. Moreover, the direction of demands from Iran has changed, or, in other words, the true expectations have been laid on the table. For if the issue were a principled stance against the death of innocents, the question arises: why was no similar principled stance taken when innocent people were burned alive in Sudan in recent months, or when 70,000 civilians died in Gaza? Likewise, if the issue is having an anti-American regime, Iran is not the only anti-American regime in the world. What, then, is the real problem?

The fundamental issue here is that the Israelis failed to achieve their strategic objectives during the 12-day conflict. None of the three declared strategic goals (ballistic missiles, the nuclear program and the proxy network) was fully realized. Although the Iranian nuclear program suffered significant damage, the know-how and the will behind the program remain intact. Similarly, the ideology that forms the foundation of the proxy network is still in power in Iran. Finally, not only did Iran largely preserve its ballistic missile capacity, but it has also restored its capacity to pre-12-day-conflict levels through continuous production since June. For this reason, Netanyahu has been raising the ballistic missile issue for two months. Indeed, even when the protests were still peaceful, propaganda was disseminated in Israel claiming, "Protests in Iran will grow, the regime will weaken, and therefore, to avoid collapse, the regime will launch a ballistic missile attack on Israel," thereby attempting to construct a legitimate basis for a second attack.

Israel's race against time

There are three main reasons why Israel failed to reach its strategic goals in the 12-day conflict. First, they lacked the actionable intelligence required to assassinate Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Second, they could not accurately calculate the number of ballistic missiles and the location of silos. Third, they failed to mobilize ideological and ethnic armed groups on the ground.

Over the past seven months, some restructuring steps have been observed in Baluchistan and among Kurdish armed groups. Likewise, the PAK, a relatively small organization that played an active role in the protests, was seen improving its relations with Israel. Among the allegations is that the PAK leader traveled to Tel Aviv during this process to meet with Israeli officials. Similarly, an interview with him was published in the Jerusalem Post.

Additionally, the 12-day conflict gave Iran the chance to test its own capacity. It observed how it could saturate Israel's air defense and with what capabilities it could strike Israel. Since then, it has focused on ballistic missile production. On the other hand, because the networks and cells meticulously cultivated by intelligence agencies for years were activated during these protests, the cards held against Iranian intelligence have, in a sense, been revealed. For these two reasons, Israel is in a race against time.

Moreover, there is a possibility that all operations conducted without reaching strategic goals have failed and gone to waste. They will either watch from afar as the groups they labored over for years are destroyed by Iranian security units, or they will make a move while there is still momentum, before it completely fades. Considering that Iran increases its ballistic missile capacity every day, the cost of a conflict today would be lower than one in the summer. Therefore, the Israelis desire to intervene before Iran completes its ballistic missile capacity and defense preparations. This, however, as Netanyahu has stated since 1992, is impossible without U.S. air power.

Within the flow mentioned at the beginning of this article, protests intensified and thanks to both media campaigns and assets deployed to the field, the gap between the government and the street widened. The conflict was deepened to thoroughly ingrain the message "the attack is legitimate" to the world. Since that day, the USS Abraham Lincoln has been moving toward Iran.

Probability of success

While the possibility of a second round of attacks on Iran is being discussed, whether such an attack would achieve its purpose remains a genuine question. Due to the sudden nature of the protests, the plan has been arranged very rapidly. In May-June, there was a serious military buildup and at least two aircraft carrier fleets in the region. Today, only a single fleet has been hastily dispatched. On the other hand, such rushed moves can harbor numerous strategic-level miscalculations. Serious vulnerabilities may also occur regarding actionable intelligence, as "secrecy," the primary condition of operational security, has vanished. A "deception" capability is currently difficult. The military objective would be to hit Tehran, in Trump's words, "very badly," thereby activating ethnic and ideological armed structures to seize cities with air support.

This plan might have achieved a result on the morning of June 13 if Khamenei had been killed, the missiles accurately calculated, and the groups mobilized on that day. However, at the point reached today, Iran has seen the risk and taken all necessary precautions. Furthermore, Iran's mosaic defense structure would prevent the "decapitation" concept from working. Killing the leader and his team might cause chaos in countries like Libya or Iraq, but the political and sociological structure in Iran is not susceptible to this. Nor should this be evaluated by Iran's past military failures. Those were offensive moves far beyond its power. However, the scenario presented today is a defensive war fought within Iran's own geography.

Türkiye, Pakistan and the Gulf countries do not want instability in Iran. All of these nations are in an alliance relationship with the U.S. and maintain good ties. Consequently, U.S. allies strongly oppose Israel's desire for an attack. Particularly considering Türkiye's historical mediation role and its relations with Iran, the diffusion of this issue through diplomatic channels is not out of the question. Türkiye's politics, based on trust with both the U.S. and Iranian sides, could be converted into a solution.

However, the Israeli side will likely want to sabotage the process from every angle to prevent their efforts from going to waste. At a time when Iran has openly declared that a potential conflict would turn into a regional war, yet still requests negotiations, dragging the entire region into instability solely due to Israel's security concerns would not only damage the U.S. and Israel internally but could also cause problems in U.S. relations with its allies in the region.