Most experts agree that the vast majority of Middle Eastern countries were happy to see the Iranian war machine torn apart.

By Shimon Sherman, JNS

On June 24, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a surprise ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel on his social media application, Truth Social.

“It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a complete and total ceasefire (in approximately six hours from now, when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in-progress, final missions!)”

Six hours after the post went up, Iran began a six-wave missile barrage on multiple targets across Israel, which left 5 civilians killed and dozens wounded. Israel remained mum while Trump quickly put up another post saying, “The ceasefire is now in effect. Please do not violate it,” to stabilize the fragile non-aggression pact.

The exact terms of the agreement have not yet been made public, and experts immediately began speculating whether the morning barrage constituted an immediate Iranian violation of the ceasefire.

Theories swirled that perhaps the truce claim was not even coordinated with Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly came out to explain that Israel had achieved its military objectives for Operation Rising Lion, was committed to the ceasefire agreement and would not consider the morning barrage as a violation of the deal.

A statement for the Prime Minister’s Office read, “In light of the achievement of the operation’s goals, and in full coordination with President Trump, Israel agreed to the President’s proposal for a mutual ceasefire.”

A mere hour later, all these discussions became irrelevant as Iran once again blatantly violated the agreement by shooting two more ballistic missiles at Israel, both of which were shot down by Israeli air defense. In the moments following the missile attack, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said he instructed the Israeli Defense Forces to “respond forcefully to Iran’s violation of the ceasefire with intense strikes against regime targets in the heart of Tehran.”

A series of diplomatic back-and-forths between Israel and the US led to a minimal Israeli strike on a small radar station outside of Tehran, with no Iranian response. The surreal movement between war and peace witnessed that Tuesday morning serves as a microcosm of the breakneck pace of history-shifting events that have shaken the Middle East over the past few weeks.

From the decapitation of Iran’s military leadership, to the destruction of Iranian air defense, to the US attack on Iran’s nuclear program, the last few weeks have been a whirlwind of transformational events.

“The last two weeks have changed the Middle East forever,” Daniel Ayalon, former deputy foreign minister, former ambassador to the U.S. and chairman of Silver Road Capital financial advisory firm, told JNS.

It is impossible to predict what direction the conflict will go. However, certain long-term implications are peaking over the horizon of this bloody clash. Regardless of the coming days, Operation Rising Lion has already transformed the Middle East and will likely be a turning point in the history of the region.

Israel as a regional power

For astute observers of the Middle East, Israel’s military supremacy was never in question. Israel is reportedly the only power in the Middle East with nuclear weapons; Israel’s air force is considered world-class and Israel has a known affinity for high-tech military innovation and covert operations.

A crucial cornerstone of the perception of Israeli military might was rooted in the Israeli successes in the War of Independence, the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Since 1973, Israel has fought in numerous wars and operations. However, none of Israel’s later engagements had the decisive quality of Israel’s earlier wars. By October 2023, amid major social upheaval, Israel’s deterrence had run dry.

The primary long-term effect of Operation Rising Lion is the total reestablishment of  Israeli deterrence and the perception of Israeli military power. It was a long road from Oct. 7, 2023, and the direct conflict with Iran was not the only stop along the way.

The dissemination of Hamas, the beeper operation, the collapse of the Assad regime, and the systematic assassination of all Hamas and Hezbollah leadership all contributed to the rebuilding of Israel’s deterrence. However, the crowning jewel of the Swords of Iron War is the current engagement with Iran.

“Israel has inflicted very major damage on Iran, a country that was threatening the entire region for decades. The message of Israel’s strength is clear throughout the entire Middle East,” Avi Melamed, Middle East expert and founder of the Inside the Middle East Intelligence Perspective Institute (ITME), told JNS. “Israel’s perception is stronger than before the damage done by Oct. 7.”

Ayalon agreed with this assessment. “Israel is a regional power in terms of strategic, military, economic and technological capabilities. However, the perception of deterrence was significantly reduced on Oct. 7,” he said. “This was restored with a vengeance over the course of the past year and a half, and especially following this operation in Iran.”

Beyond a regional reestablishment of deterrence, experts believe that Operation Rising Lion establishes Israel as a global leader in modern warfare tactics.

“The operation was not just historic. It was transformational. It redefined what shock and awe can look like in the 21st century. This was not merely a strike. It was a campaign—a layered, synchronized demonstration of modern operational art, built on deep intelligence, strategic deception, and the innovative fusion of old and new tools of war,” John Spencer, chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, wrote in a recent essay.

“This is the future of war. It is multi-domain. It is preemptive. It is asymmetric. It is built on intelligence and designed for initiative. Israel didn’t just strike Iran. It disarmed, disoriented, and destabilized a much larger adversary before the war had even begun in earnest,” he added.

Abraham Accords

A likely after-effect of the current operation in Iran will be a significant acceleration in Israeli normalization efforts with various arab countries. Netanyahu has framed Operation Rising Lion as a catalyst for regional transformation.

“Extraordinary opportunities are being opened up here … I can imagine a massive expansion of the peace agreements … We will see a bright future of security, of prosperity, of hope, and also of peace,” he said in a recent press conference.  He further emphasized that “we believe in peace through strength. Israel’s strength brought about the Abraham Accords even when Iran was at the height of its power.”

These remarks reflect an ambition to harness military success to drive a new wave of diplomatic breakthroughs. “Israel’s attack on the Iranian regime has only strengthened the prospects for an enlarged Abraham Accords security alliance,” Dr. Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCFA), told JNS.

Ayalon echoed these sentiments, saying, “I believe that following the removal of the Iranian threat, we will see the Abraham Accords expand and flourish.”

At first, this effort may seem doomed from the start as the military operations drew swift criticism across Arab capitals. Many governments publicly condemned Israel’s actions on Syrian soil, denouncing them as violations of sovereignty and international law. Jordan, Egypt, Qatar and the Arab League rebuked the campaign, saying the Israeli attack constituted “a blatant violation of the sovereignty of a UN member state and a threat to regional peace and security.”

Despite these sharp critiques, most experts agree that the vast majority of Middle Eastern countries were happy to see the Iranian war machine torn apart.

“Many in the Arab world, and particularly in the Gulf, are pleased and relieved that Israel took the courageous decision to initiate a massive assault against the Iranian nuclear and ballistic programs. The Gulf and the larger Arab world were under the same threat that Israel has faced,” Diker said.

“The United States has now played a key role in destroying the major Iranian uranium enrichment sites. However, it took Israel’s initiative and success to encourage the United States to play such a crucial role in neutralizing the regime’s nuclear program. Israel’s action engenders unprecedented respect in the Arab world more privately than publicly,” Diker added.

He further explained that in the aftermath of the operation, “Israel is emerging as the strong horse in the Middle East, which it can now help secure and stabilize as a lead, designer, and partner in forging new alliances.”

While this may not be discernible from the statements of the Arab countries, their actions over the past days tell a different story.

Saudi Arabia

Despite Saudi Arabia’s official condemnation of Operation Rising Lion—labeling it a “blatant violation” of international law and demanding restraint from all sides—the broader context suggests that strategic ties between Riyadh and Jerusalem may be quietly advancing.

An anonymous Arabic source told i24NEWS that recent Israeli strikes against Iran’s infrastructure have “promoted relations with Saudi Arabia.” The report emphasized that while a formal establishment of ties may come only after the Gaza conflict ends, “the Saudis express great satisfaction with developments on the Iranian front.”

The Saudi government’s public rhetoric reflects its obligation to regional norms and solidarity, particularly with Iran’s sovereignty claims. However, regional analysts widely agree that Saudi leaders, especially within the defense and intelligence establishment, see Israel’s bold and highly technical operation as confirmation of its value as a military counterweight to Iran.

Lebanon

Lebanon’s response to Operation Rising Lion also indicated positive progress on the normalization front. Despite the severity of Israeli strikes on Iranian assets, Hezbollah, Iran’s most powerful regional proxy, did not retaliate.

Lebanese officials, including Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, emphasized the country’s desire to avoid entanglement. Berri reportedly assured international interlocutors that “Hezbollah would abstain from regional participation,” signaling broad political consensus around neutrality.

This deliberate distancing was reaffirmed in closed-door talks with U.S. officials, where Lebanese leaders stressed that “Lebanon is not a participant in this war.” This restraint, rare during high-stakes regional escalations, has quietly revived conversations among some analysts about the long-term possibility of Lebanon joining a regional normalization track.

While no official movement is expected in the near term, the fact that Hezbollah did not act on Iran’s behalf during one of the most high-profile Israeli operations in recent memory has been taken in Jerusalem and Washington as a signal that Lebanon may be moving in the right direction. The possibility of Lebanon entering into the Abraham Accords has been publicly acknowledged by high-level Israeli officials.

Syria

During Operation Rising Lion, Syria took a notably restrained stance that quietly suggested a shift in regional posture. Despite Israeli military flights crossing Syrian airspace, Damascus issued no public condemnation and refrained from any retaliatory action—an unprecedented departure from past behavior.

Interim President Ahmed al‑Sharaa’s government emphasized that “Syria has not and will not pose a threat to any party in the region,” signaling a deliberate attempt to project neutrality. Behind the scenes, U.S. and Gulf diplomats confirmed that Syrian officials engaged in deconfliction talks to prevent escalation, effectively tolerating Israeli overflight.

These actions, though subtle, mark a strategic recalibration, particularly as Syrian and Israeli officials recently held direct security talks and al‑Sharaa expressed conditional interest in joining the Abraham Accords. While full normalization remains a distant prospect, Syria’s conduct during Rising Lion reveals cracks in its long-standing alignment with Iran and opens the possibility of future integration into a broader regional normalization framework.

Iranian regime change

While Israel finds itself in its strongest position in the aftermath of Operation Rising Lion, Iran’s regime may be breathing its last breaths. Rising Lion has shifted more than military targets—it has reframed the Iranian domestic and international equation. With regime-change rhetoric rising, the ground is increasingly fertile for one of three outcomes: popular uprising, military coup or sectarian conflict.

“We are on the pathway to regime implosion. What we are witnessing now is the crumbling of the regime due to a number of different factors,” Diker explained.

“The Iranian regime is at its worst point ever. It may be able to survive this crisis, but its position is very weakened, and there is a possibility of the regime collapsing,” Melamed added.

The concept of regime change in Tehran has gained new resonance amid Operation Rising Lion. Netanyahu told Fox News, “regime change ‘could certainly be the result’” of the campaign, adding that while it is not Israel’s declared objective, “the fall of this regime is first and foremost a matter for the Iranian people.”

In parallel, Trump, via Truth Social, provocatively suggested: “If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change?? MIGA!!” Yet, Trump later clarified he did not want chaos, signaling U.S. ambivalence. Even so, the interplay of Israeli calls and U.S. rhetoric has elevated regime-change discourse to the heart of regional geopolitics.

The prospect of a mass Iranian uprising is complex. Precedents include the Green Movement (2009) and the Women, Life, Freedom protests (2022), which were both eventually suppressed. Although public dissatisfaction is widespread, with polls indicating deep disillusionment amid economic suffering and social repression, the Iranian regime has ample experience in suppressing the Iranian street.

Israel’s war with Iran led to much of Iran’s population evacuating key cities, making the prospect of million-man demonstrations such as those in 2009 deeply unlikely. However, analysts argue that post-operation conditions—intensified civilian casualties, infrastructure damage, and online outrage could reignite popular unrest on an unprecedented scale.

Another potential pathway for change lies in intra-military dynamics. Iran’s IRGC and regular army (Artesh) have long been rivals for influence. Analysts note mounting disagreements over strategy and foreign intervention.

According to the Counter-Extremism Project (CEP), “Both IRGC and Artesh (Iranian army) are ideologically different and rarely work together … Even in creating weapons, both the IRGC and Artesh work independently, and their bases in Iran are separate. This organizational separation creates overlapping command, deep mistrust, and inefficient redundancies, a structural fault line that could be exploited in a power struggle.”

A well-timed operation like Rising Lion could expose fissures, possibly enabling a coup if senior figures decide survival outweighs loyalty. Historical echoes, such as the failed 1980 military coup attempt, illustrate the possibility of an internal takeover during a crisis.

“I think a military coup is the most probable mechanism for regime collapse. Generals might start believing that the regime is collapsing and that it might take them with it, and they may choose to save themselves,” Ayalon said. Diker agreed that a military coup was a distinct possibility.

A final likely source for regime change in Tehran is sectarian divisions, which have long served as a bleeding ulcer for the ayatollahs’ rule. Iran’s ethnic mosaic of Persian, Kurdish, Azeri, Baluchi and Arab communities reveals simmering tensions.

Kurdish groups, in particular, used the backdrop of Rising Lion to renew calls for rebellion. One Kurdish spokesperson declared, “Now is the moment to rise, Iran is weakening,” signaling growing boldness. While these statements remain early-stage, coordinated ethnic rebel action, especially in border regions, could fracture national unity if the regime is weakened domestically or internationally.

All three of these possibilities will become increasingly likely in the aftermath of the operation. Tehran’s first reaction has historically been brutal repression. Since Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei took power on June 4, 1989, security forces have crushed dissent ruthlessly, shutting down internet access, jailing protesters, and executing critics.

Following Rising Lion, the regime is expected to escalate surveillance, arrest networks, and sectarian scapegoating to preempt mass unrest, coups, or ethnic rebellion. However, such repression often intensifies backlash, fueling public anger, fracturing military loyalty and emboldening ethnic movements, creating a feedback loop that could catalyze precisely the regime change the operation sought to inspire.

Regardless of whether or not a full regime change comes in the near future, the balance of power has irreversibly shifted. Iran’s military was exposed to be a paper tiger.

The IRGC, Artesh and Basij high commands are decimated. Iran’s Ballistic missile program, arsenal and launchers have been severely damaged. Iran’s nuclear program is gone. Iran does not control its airspace. Iran’s powerful allies, such as Russia and China, abandoned it. Iran’s proxies are mostly destroyed.

In hindsight, it is now clear that Oct. 7 was the beginning of the end for Iran’s “Axis of Resistance.”  In short, the Middle East that emerges on the other side of Rising Lion is fundamentally transformed, with a new balance of power, a developing alliance network and a collapsing Shia crescent heading in a diminishing trajectory.

Shimon Sherman is a columnist covering global security, Middle Eastern affairs, and geopolitical developments.