The Israel-Iran Crisis: Assessing Future Scenarios

Following a 12-day military confrontation between Israel and Iran, the Islamic Republic faces a critical inflection point. Its long-standing national defense doctrine—centered on regional alliances, missile deterrence, and nuclear ambiguity—has been significantly strained. How will Tehran respond to the setbacks in its regional posture, domestic cohesion, and international standing? On June 26, 2025, Wikistrat hosted a webinar with Dr. Sina Azodi to assess Iran’s strategic outlook, internal dynamics, and post-conflict options.

Dr. Sina Azodi is the Program Director of the M.A. in Middle East Studies at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, where his research and teaching focus on Iranian foreign policy, nuclear non-proliferation, and U.S.–Iran relations.

Key Insights

1. Iran’s Defense Doctrine Has Collapsed—Except the Missiles 

Azodi explained that the war exposed the failure of Iran’s “forward defense” strategy: Hezbollah remained on the sidelines, Syria’s front collapsed, and even the Houthis did not escalate. Only Iran’s ballistic missiles proved effective—though they were used in large quantities and may be hard to replace.

2. A Nuclear Identity Crisis: Between Symbol and Survival 

Iran’s nuclear program has become more than a strategic deterrent—it is a symbol of resistance. Azodi noted that abandoning it now, after enduring sanctions and war, would be seen as humiliating. Meanwhile, withdrawal from the NPT and testing a crude device remain on the table as high-risk options.

3. Iran Faces a Strategic Catch-22 

If Iran escalates its nuclear posture, it invites sanctions and further military action. But if it concedes, the regime risks losing credibility among even its base. This deadlock, Azodi argued, is of Iran’s own making—and could trigger a legitimacy crisis.

4. The Rise of the IRGC: Toward a Military-Led State? 

With Supreme Leader Khamenei appearing increasingly frail, Azodi warned of a potential “hostile takeover” by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iran’s future may resemble a more conventional military dictatorship than a clerical state.

5. Public Sentiment: Anger, Fear, and Nationalism Coexist 

Despite the devastation, the public did not rise up. Azodi emphasized that no population in modern history has toppled a regime under aerial bombardment. While some Iranians resent the regime, others rallied around it for protection—especially as Gen Z experienced war on Iranian soil for the first time.

6. Hardliners Gained the Upper Hand 

The war has discredited the diplomatic camp and emboldened those pushing for confrontation. Azodi warned that the relative success of Iran’s missile response may push Tehran further from the negotiating table.

7. China and Russia: All Talk, No Help 

While China may offer diplomatic cover and Iran hopes for weapons sales, Azodi noted both China and Russia have shown themselves unwilling or unable to provide meaningful military support—despite Iran’s help in Ukraine.

8. Repression or Reconciliation? 

Post-war Iran could take one of two paths: hardline consolidation through mass arrests and executions, or cautious reform to rebuild state-society trust. Reformist voices like Rouhani are calling for national dialogue, but the regime may instead tighten control.

As Dr. Azodi highlighted, the war may be over—but the battle for Iran’s future is just beginning. With the nuclear file, internal legitimacy, and regional posture all in flux, Tehran faces fateful choices. Whether Iran emerges as a nuclear-armed outcast, a besieged theocracy, or a militarized nationalist regime will depend not only on battlefield losses and foreign policy—but on what path it chooses at home. One thing is clear: the status quo is gone, and the next chapter will be defined by both danger and volatility.