At the outset of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran in February 2026, the Islamic Republic appeared battered and weakened. Large-scale bombing had destroyed industry and infrastructure, and a U.S. naval blockade had devastated an already ailing economy. In early March, U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters on Air Force One, “We’ve decimated their whole evil empire.” Several weeks later, he declared “total and complete victory.”

Three months in, however, the picture looks quite different. Iran retains its military and industrial capacity, and despite Trump’s call for Iranians to topple the regime, no popular uprising is in the offing. The war’s initial aim—to deliver a death blow to the Islamic Republic—has proved unattainable.

Rather than breaking Iran, the crucible of war has transformed it in unanticipated ways. To survive and establish new strategic advantages, the Islamic Republic had to adapt and innovate, changing how it waged war, ran the state, and managed society. And it had to do so with unprecedented speed. Tehran is now confident in what it has achieved and determined to consolidate those gains at home and abroad. The war has given rise to a new Iran, one that will reshape the Middle East and influence the course of geopolitics for years to come.

Sensing that the Iranian regime was weakened by Israel’s 12-day war in June 2025 and a popular uprising in January 2026, Israel and the United States launched airstrikes on Iran on February 28. They expected a quick victory through targeted assassinations of Iran’s leadership. But decapitation did not produce regime collapse. Instead, it opened the door for a new generation to take over.

Many Western observers view the new leadership that emerged during the war, which is dominated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as more ideologically hard-line and hawkish toward the United States and Israel. But that’s not quite right. What truly distinguishes it is subtler and more consequential. Observers outside Iran focus on the handful of top leaders such as Mojtaba Khamenei, the new supreme leader; Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of parliament; and Ahmad Vahidi, the commander of the IRGC. More important, however, is the transformation in the ranks below them: a new generation of IRGC commanders and civilian security officials who came of age after the 1979 revolution. They now hold key decision-making positions, and their nationalistic outlook on statecraft and security is redefining the Islamic Republic.

The worldviews of the founding generation of the revolution, including former leaders Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei, were forged by their long opposition to the U.S.-backed rule of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi and years spent in the shah’s prisons or in exile. Those at the helm today, Iran’s second generation of revolutionaries, including Mojtaba Khamenei, Ghalibaf, and Vahidi, were teenagers and young adults during the Iran-Iraq War. Their worldview was hardened in the trenches of the longest conventional war of the twentieth century. Those in the new managerial class of Iran’s political and armed forces, the third generation of the revolution, know nothing but postrevolutionary Iran. The members of this officer class of the armed forces and the IRGC, along with their affiliated security institutions, adopted a structured, technocratic culture and a strategic outlook built around national defense, not revolutionary ideology. And they govern with the confidence of leaders who believe they have successfully defended Iran in two wars against militarily superior powers (last year’s 12-day war and this year’s far larger conflict), achieving something the revolution had only promised: a genuine weakening of American power in the Middle East.

The previous supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed on the first day of the February war, was the product of the intellectual and political currents of pre-​revolutionary Iran in the Pahlavi era. His political education had been honed by debate with secular nationalists, leftists, and liberals who shared his goals of toppling the monarchy and standing up to Western imperialism. Once in power, the revolution’s leaders imposed their ideology on Iran, but they never overcame the insecurity inherent in asserting the right to rule over a society that would not wholly submit.

The new generation knows none of this firsthand. Most of them were children at the founding of the Islamic Republic and were raised believing in its right to rule. These men did not fight their way to power; they came of age inside the institutions of power, taking their legitimacy as given. The insecurity that marked the founding generation—the constant need to prove that the revolution was real, its claims serious, the old elite truly defeated—is largely absent. They are not defending a revolution. They are administering a state.

This psychological distinction has enormous practical implications. When Ali Khamenei’s generation confronted the world—in hostage negotiations, nuclear talks, regional confrontations—there was always an undercurrent of grievance, a voice rising in the rhetoric of historical injustice and Islamic vindication. It was powerful and real, but a strategic liability. It made them predictable, defensive, and prone to conflating the defense of their ideology with the defense of Iran’s national interests, which did not always neatly align.

The new generation has separated revolution from statecraft. At home and abroad, it neither espouses revolutionary grandiosity nor advocates revolutionary activism. The new leaders are establishment actors: pragmatic, hardened nationalists operating with a clear-eyed assessment of Iran’s capabilities and vulnerabilities. Unlike their predecessors, they can exercise strategic patience and act decisively. They look at Iran’s weaknesses frequently and publicly—something the founding generation was too insecure to do honestly—and they treat them as problems to be solved. That instinct drove the changes Tehran made between the two wars.

Before the U.S.-Israeli attack in June 2025, Iran’s rulers had assumed they could indefinitely sustain a no-war, no-peace standoff with the United States and Israel. They were proved wrong, and the reckoning with that complacency began the moment the 12-day war ended. The new IRGC leadership expected the June cease-fire to collapse and another war to follow, possibly with the United States involved from the start. Iran’s universities, research institutions, think tanks, and government bodies began hosting debates about lessons learned and changes required. More institutional change took place in those eight months than in the previous ten years combined. Many executive decisions on trade, agriculture, and management of economic and social services were decentralized from Tehran to provincial capitals. And the organizations overseeing propaganda, communication with domestic audiences, and information dissemination abroad underwent a generational overhaul. Institutional lethargy had long defined the Islamic Republic’s bureaucracy; now it gave way to the imperative of rapid adaptation. In the process, the technocratic decision-makers took charge.

After Khamenei was killed in a U.S.-Israeli airstrike, the succession of his son Mojtaba was swift and remarkably orderly. The new generation that had emerged from the June 2025 war chose him in part because he had long championed them. Mojtaba was a member of the IRGC and fought in the Iran-Iraq War before entering the seminary to become a cleric. He later served at his father’s side, overseeing the IRGC’s transformation and the rise of its future leadership. Mojtaba’s ascent confirmed and accelerated the generational transformation, producing not the institutional collapse Washington expected but its opposite.

The manner in which the elder Khamenei was killed, at his home rather than in a bunker, mattered enormously. The new leaders immediately framed his death as martyrdom, and that framing worked. Rather than demoralizing the system, Khamenei’s assassination gave the new generation of leaders direction and purpose; their first act was to mobilize the Islamic Republic’s rank and file around his death. That messaging also drew a larger segment of Iranian society to rally around the flag.

The new generation has separated revolution from statecraft.

Iran’s conduct of the subsequent war reflected the new generation’s technocratic approach. The Islamic Republic had long operated through a chaotic maze of competing power centers, which produced unending internal debate and sclerotic inertia. But between the two wars, that chaos gave way to organizational discipline and resilience.........

© Foreign Affairs