INTERVIEW-Tehran's Response will be Limited to Escalation with Israel: Dr. Youssef Badr

Leaders

23-06-2025

As the conflict between Iran and Israel entered its tenth day, the US joined to Israel's side, striking three key nuclear facilities in Iran with bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles and risking further escalation.
The announcement came early on Sunday, as the US President, Donald Trump, declared that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities, Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, have been 'completely and totally obliterated.'
In response, Iran accused Washington of launching a dangerous war on Tehran, in complicity with Israel, warning of the 'everlasting consequences' of the US strikes and stressing Iran's right to respond.
The recent escalation has put the world on edge, as Tehran is weighing its response, including the possibility of closing the Hormuz Strait – a move that could send shockwaves across the global economy. As a result, world powers have called for restraint and de-escalation, urging all sides to return to diplomacy.
To gain more insights into the ongoing conflict, Leaders MENA Magazine reached out for Dr. Youssef Badr, a scholar of Middle Eastern affairs. In this interview, Dr. Badr explains the implications of the recent developments on Iran and the wider region. Iran's Nuclear Program
Q: Have the US and Israeli strikes succeeded in eliminating Iran's nuclear program?
Officially, Trump promotes that the Iranian nuclear program is obliterated in order to end the war. In fact, however, the US and Israel have not managed to completely eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. They have just disrupted it.
The Iranian nuclear program cannot be obliterated because – unlike projects previously destroyed in Libya or Iraq – it depends on national expertise, whether in terms of scientists, equipment production, or facility construction.
Therefore, the US policy, which was swayed by the Israeli narrative, does not appear successful because the Iranian project could go underground. In this case, it will be more dangerous than monitoring it by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Tehran's Options
Q: Would Iran escalate or succumb to Trump's threats and choose peaceful settlement? And what options does Tehran have to respond?
Tehran will not accept a forced peace, just as it has rejected a forced war. Hence, it will not be easy for the Iranians to accept any settlement that comes at the expense of their status and regional interests. Iran's history bears this out. The Iranians did not end war with Iraq – even though they were not the ones who initiated it – until they secured their demands.
Indeed, Iran welcomes an end to the war, but not in the form of a capitulation. Any settlement must yield benefits. The Iranians may not oppose giving up the right to uranium enrichment in exchange of something bigger, such as the return of Iran to the global economy in a competitive way.
Tehran's options to respond to the US strikes will remain limited to escalation with the Israelis and disturbing the Americans. The Iranian military strategy does not invite a war with the US and consider it a red line. However, Iran has the ability to endure a long attrition war, although the large geographical distance between Iran and Israel makes it unlikely. Escalation Risks
Q: Trump told the Iranians that there are 'many targets left' that the US could strike if 'peace does not come quickly.' In your opinion, what was Trump referring to?
It is a warning message to pressure Iran to accept a deal that brings the war to an end. He means draining what is left of Iran's economic, military or nuclear capabilities.
Despite Tehran's rejection of ending the war, negotiations have not stopped and Trump sends messages to Iran through mediators. Moreover, the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's visit to Moscow indicates that reaching a solution is possible, particularly that Tehran met with the E3. This also indicates a failure of Trump's policy, which refused multilateral talks in the beginning. Intervention Implications
Q: What potential repercussions does the US' military intervention in Iran have on the Middle East and the world?
Two nuclear powers attacked an undeclared nuclear state, which has a nuclear program that, despite suspicions, has not been proven to be non-peaceful. This undermines the UN Charter and constitutes a failure of the IAEA's mission and goals. Therefore, it makes the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) membership pointless, especially that Trump publicly acknowledged striking nuclear facilities and NASA confirmed the operation.
Furthermore, Israel's involvement in the operation will drive the region's countries to seriously consider the danger of Israel's nuclear capabilities, aside from Iran's issue.
Similarly, the American move emboldens Russia to replicate the strike against Ukrainian nuclear facilities. Russia and China
Q: How do you assess the positions of Russia and China toward the current escalation? Would they intervene in the conflict?
Russia has taken advantage of the West's focus on Iran, intensifying its strikes on Ukraine and occupying more territories to gain more bargaining chips with the Western powers.
Despite limited support, there will be no direct Russian intervention to Iran's side unless Iran agreed to include military partnership in the strategic agreement between the two countries. But this risks broadening the war. Current conflicts involve a side that engages in a direct confrontation and another side that provides undeclared support, as seen with NATO's unofficial support to Ukraine.
Moreover, Moscow does not want a strong Iran as this will deny Russia an avenue to maneuver against Western and European sanctions. At the same time, it does not welcome the fall or fragmentation of Iran. In such case, Russia could reoccupy the northern regions of Iran to protect its interests and influence.
As for China, Iran is not like Pakistan, which borders China and received its support against India. Still, Iran is important for China as a gateway to Europe, the Gulf and the Middle East. So, it does not welcome its collapse.
Meanwhile, Russia and China are both responsible for the dilapidated state that Iran is experiencing. The two countries have not given Tehran its demanded weapons, defense systems and fighter jets, under the pretext of compliance to international sanctions. Thus, Iran has not received sufficient development since it aligned itself with them. Domestic Impacts of Escalation
Q: How is the current conflict impacting Iran domestically? And is the collapse of the regime imminent?
There are opponents, even enemies, to the current regime. But at the same time, there are supporters, and Iran's social and organizational structure is contributing to protecting this regime.
Just as the opposition propaganda claims that the Iranian regime has begun to erode, the current war may have given it a new lease on life. The regime managed to adapt to the war in Iraq for eight years.
Additionally, the 2015 nuclear deal granted Iran an opportunity for change, as a result of its engagement with the West – a development that unsettled Russia and China. However, Trump scrapped the deal and caused a mistrust in the West. This lack of trust in the Western powers will keep pushing Iranians toward alignment with Moscow and Beijing.
Short link :
Post Views: 10