The war between Israel, the United States, and the Islamic Regime of Iran has triggered a new phase in Middle Eastern politics. Yet behind the military confrontation lies a deeper question: does the current conflict mark the beginning of the end for the clerical system that has ruled Iran for forty-seven years?

To understand the current moment, one must first recognize an essential reality often ignored in international debates: Iranian society is not politically uniform. Iranian citizens hold a wide range of political views, ideologies, and aspirations. Some oppose war entirely and have organized movements under slogans such as “No to War.” Others believe that only external pressure can weaken the regime that has dominated the country for decades. This diversity of opinion reflects a living society struggling under an authoritarian system.

However, one point remains central to understanding Iran’s political trajectory: the Islamic Republic did not emerge as a normal democratic government but as a system deeply rooted in revolutionary violence and organized terror. From the earliest years after the 1979 revolution, militant networks, revolutionary courts, and armed ideological organizations became the pillars of power. The regime consolidated authority through intimidation, political executions, hostage-taking, and the export of revolutionary militancy across the region.

For forty-seven years, the survival of the savage Islamic Regime has relied on the same mechanism: terror as a governing method. Domestically, dissent has been suppressed through mass arrests, executions, and brutal crackdowns on protests. Regionally, the regime has built and supported militant proxy organizations across the Middle East. These networks—armed groups operating in multiple countries—have functioned as extensions of Iran’s ideological and geopolitical ambitions.

In this context, the current war cannot be understood simply as a military clash between states. It is also the result of decades of confrontation between a revolutionary regime and the international order. The Islamic Republic’s leadership has consistently framed conflict with the United States and Israel not merely as political rivalry but as an existential ideological struggle.

At the same time, events inside Iran during the past year have underscored the brutality of the regime’s internal rule. In January 2026, according to numerous reports and testimonies from activists, approximately 45,000 patriotic and pro-freedom Iranian citizens were killed in a massive crackdown and genocide-like wave of violence. These individuals were described by many Iranians as brave citizens who loved their country and demanded dignity, accountability, and national sovereignty.

The scale of the repression shocked many observers. Yet despite such atrocities, the Iranian regime continues to present itself internationally as the legitimate representative of the Iranian people. This claim remains deeply contested by millions of Iranians who argue that the system rules not through consent but through fear and coercion.

Another defining characteristic of the Islamic Republic is its ideological worldview. The ruling elite is deeply influenced by apocalyptic and end-times thinking. Certain factions within the clerical establishment interpret regional conflict through theological narratives about historical confrontation and divine mission. Such beliefs complicate diplomatic engagement because strategic decisions are often shaped by ideological commitments rather than pragmatic calculation.

From this perspective, the current war did not simply appear spontaneously. Many critics argue that the Shi’ite clerical leadership itself brought the shadow of war into Iran through decades of confrontation, regional proxy warfare, and ideological hostility toward Israel and the United States. In other words, the Iranian people are not the cause of the war; the governing system is.

Nevertheless, outside Iran, the regime’s propaganda networks remain highly active. Lobby groups, sympathetic commentators, and influence networks regularly appear in Western media arguing that the current conflict is destroying Iranian infrastructure and harming the Iranian population. While damage to infrastructure is a genuine concern in any war, critics argue that this narrative ignores a deeper truth.

The Islamic Republic itself has been one of the primary forces responsible for the long-term destruction of Iran’s economy, political institutions, and social stability. Decades of corruption, sanctions-triggering policies, ideological isolation, and massive military expenditures have weakened the country. Large portions of national wealth were diverted toward missile programs, military installations, and regional proxy networks while ordinary citizens faced inflation, unemployment, and economic hardship.

Critics therefore contend that the regime has effectively transformed Iran into a militarized state, prioritizing ideological expansion and regional power ambitions over national development. The result has been a country whose infrastructure, economy, and political institutions have been steadily eroded.

Today, another striking development is visible. Intelligence operations attributed to Mossad and the CIA have reportedly penetrated deep into the Iranian security structure, exposing vulnerabilities and humiliating the regime’s leadership. These operations have targeted key figures within the military and intelligence apparatus, further undermining the regime’s aura of invulnerability.

Inside Iran, reactions to such events reveal the deep divide between the population and the ruling elite. When announcements appear that senior military or security officials of the regime have been killed, many citizens quietly celebrate. For them, these figures are associated with decades of repression, executions, and political violence.

This reaction highlights a critical distinction: many Iranians are deeply patriotic and love their country, but they do not identify with the ruling regime. They want a peaceful future for Iran but do not want to live under a system they consider oppressive and destructive.

For that reason, a fundamental question now dominates political debate: If the current military campaign by Israel and the United States does not ultimately lead to meaningful political change or regime transformation, will the war have achieved anything?

Some analysts argue that a wounded but surviving regime could become even more dangerous. A humiliated leadership might intensify repression at home while declaring victory through propaganda. State media could portray the conflict as proof that the Islamic Republic resisted powerful adversaries, reinforcing ideological legitimacy.

Meanwhile, millions of Iranians living outside the country continue to organize demonstrations across Europe, North America, and other regions. Their message to the world is clear: millions of people inside Iran remain trapped under an authoritarian religious system and deserve international attention and solidarity.

These diaspora protests reflect a powerful sentiment shared by many Iranians: the struggle in Iran is not only geopolitical but fundamentally about freedom, dignity, and national sovereignty.

As the war continues and political uncertainty grows, the central question remains unavoidable: Is 2026 the year when the Shi’ite clerical regime in Iran begins to collapse? And beyond that lies an even larger strategic question:

Will the state that many critics describe as the core of the “axis of terror” ultimately survive, or is the Islamic Republic entering the final phase of its historical trajectory?The answer may determine not only the future of Iran but the strategic balance of the entire Middle East.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)