From start to finish, the U.S.-Israeli plan was to bring about regime change in Iran. Not only did that fail to happen, but the Islamic Republic of Iran emerged from those long months of foreign aggression stronger than ever on every level. In domestic politics, national cohesion has strengthened; the people have united—or reunited—behind their government and their military.
1) Can we say that Iran has “won” the war between the United States/Israel and Iran? In your opinion, are the objectives Iran achieved in the agreement strategic and lasting, or merely tactical and temporary?
Yes, we can say that Iran has won. The sequence that ends in June 2026 begins in December 2025 on the streets of Tehran. We see the emergence of a genuine social protest movement, but one that is co-opted and amplified by foreign powers through agents provocateurs infiltrated among the demonstrators in an attempt to tip the country into a paramilitary coup—commonly referred to as a “color revolution.” This destabilization operation led by the U.S. and Israel fails in January 2026, then escalates into open war against Iran on February 28. (1)
From start to finish, the U.S.-Israeli plan was to bring about regime change in Iran. Not only did that fail to happen, but the Islamic Republic of Iran emerged from those long months of foreign aggression stronger than ever on every level. In domestic politics, national cohesion has strengthened; the people have united—or reunited—behind their government and their military. Indeed, pro-Western Iranians, who protested during the winter calling for U.S. support, were themselves bombed by the U.S. in the name of democracy, and they thus quickly realized who their true enemy was. According to our sources on the ground, Hamed Ghashghavi and Adnan Azzam, this also applies to feminist Iranian women who refuse to wear the veil—a growing number—but who now stand in complete solidarity with the Islamic regime despite everything. And on the international stage, Iran now appears as the victorious spearhead of resistance to Western imperialism and Zionism. (2)
How did the Iranian government pull off this feat of asymmetric warfare? How did it manage to defeat a stronger enemy? When you have weaknesses on the offensive, you have to focus entirely on defense. That’s what was explained to me when I went to Iran for an international symposium as part of the New Horizon conferences held between 2012 and 2019. I recently published an online retrospective article on the history of this particularly successful “soft power” initiative. (3) These international meetings were organized by the Iranian deep state and its offshoot within the Pasdaran, that elite military group also known as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). A member of the Pasdaran explained to us between two plenary sessions that Iranian military strategists had meticulously studied the U.S. atomic bombings of Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. These same Iranian military strategists then applied this model to Iran to develop what is known as a “mosaic” defense strategy. This strategy is intended to enable their nation-state to withstand a nuclear attack on its five major cities (Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, etc.) and to continue functioning despite everything, without disintegrating and descending into anarchy. It was then that I realized Iran was, in fact, a massive bunker—a country-wide fallout shelter. The entire country is a fortress. Or more precisely, Iran is a decentralized network of strongholds and local fortresses, each capable of existing autonomously and reconstituting a viable state from any one of its parts, even if all the others are destroyed.
We have also seen this capacity for resilience and regeneration among political figures and the ruling elites: the enemy may decimate the front line, but a second line of replacements is able to take over immediately, followed by a third, and so on. To use a sports metaphor, each individual serves the team effort, and the team’s organizational structure takes precedence over individual ego. It is this selflessness and sense of individual sacrifice that ensures the continuity of the state and the national community. We sometimes speak of “peoples under arms.” Here is one such example. For decades, the Iranians had been perfectly prepared for the massive attack they suffered—an attack intended to topple the government, as in Iraq or Libya, but which only served to strengthen it. They live by Nietzsche’s words: “What does not kill me makes me stronger.” Even more than Islam, I believe that the true religion of the Iranians is survivalism. The country’s complete militarization—from the popular mindset to drone factories, including the geography of the Strait of Hormuz—thus links the long term (the strategy for survival) with the short term (tactics), that is, limited but intelligently and effectively utilized concrete resources. The memorandum of understanding is an expression of this dual imperative. But its sustainability is under threat because Iran’s enemies in Israel and the U.S. will do everything in their power to sabotage the peace and resume their hybrid war—one based on economic sanctions aimed at turning the population against the government, and involving the use of conventional and unconventional weapons of all kinds.
2) Following the June 19 agreement, can we say that Israel has achieved its strategic objectives? What role will Israel play after this agreement?
For many Israelis, Israel’s security necessarily depends on regime change in Iran, so that the country becomes pro-Israel and abandons Hezbollah, the Palestinian cause, and its nuclear program. And if regime change is not possible, then the destruction of Iran must be seriously considered. These strategic objectives have not been achieved—far from it; in fact, it has been a resounding failure. This is also why more and more Israelis feel abandoned by the U.S., left to fend for themselves, and believe that their country must stop relying on American protection, become completely autonomous, and be capable of ensuring its own security. Israelis do indeed have cause for concern if the Democratic Party returns to power. The “woke” left is viscerally anti-Zionist. On the other hand, Donald Trump and the Republican Party—as good conservative White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs)—will never abandon Israel, in the name of the Bible and the unity of the Judeo-Christian Western civilization.
Nevertheless, a schism seems to be emerging within the Zionist world, between a domineering yet realistic form of Zionism—that of Donald Trump, who seeks to spread the influence of the Judeo-Christian West throughout the world, but who is also capable of negotiating with Iran when it resists him— and a completely deranged form of Zionism, driven by disturbing sadomasochistic impulses—that of Benjamin Netanyahu and Jewish supremacists such as Itamar Ben Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, and Israel Katz. For these individuals—who are genuine sociopaths—it is essential at all costs to maintain a permanent security threat hanging over Israel. This is why Netanyahu allowed the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, to take place. The “siege complex,” or “Masada complex,” is a highly effective tool for social control through fear. This morbid and suicidal political movement, historically known as “revisionist Zionism,” needs to be constantly in danger and on the brink of disaster to feel that it exists, and it secretly rejoices over the agreement negotiated by Trump—which favors Iran and is perceived as a catastrophe in Israel. Anti-Semitism is a driving force behind Zionism, as Theodor Herzl recognized in his time. More recently, Raphaël Jerusalmy, a Franco-Israeli and former member of military intelligence, made the following observation: “Itamar Ben Gvir is fueling anti-Semitism, and Netanyahu is doing nothing to stop him.” (4)
To keep the flames of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism burning, Israel must make itself as detestable as possible to its neighbors and to the entire world. Even at the risk of angering its American protector. American journalist Chris Hedges published an article that aptly summarizes the current tensions between Israel and the U.S.: “Israel is sabotaging negotiations with Iran and alienating its last major ally [the U.S.] by refusing to cease its attacks on Lebanon and withdraw from the south of the country. It is determined to reignite a regional conflict that could lead to Iran’s permanent closure of the Strait of Hormuz and plunge the global economy into a worldwide recession. And it continues its genocide in Gaza.” (5)
3) One of the reasons Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA was that the agreement had been signed by Barack Hussein Obama. Although Trump himself signed an agreement this time, are we looking at a lasting agreement, or should we expect the new agreement to collapse?
As you point out, this battle over the Iranian nuclear deal also has a domestic political dimension in the U.S. A revolution in public opinion is underway regarding geopolitical and international issues, particularly concerning relations with Israel, and to fully understand it, we must reconstruct the balance of power that exists within the American deep state. This “Deep State” is not unified; it is divided into two camps: the pro-Israel right, represented by the Republican Party, and the pro-Iran left, represented by the Democratic Party. With the JCPOA—the Iran nuclear deal signed in 2015—Barack Hussein Obama reached out to Iran, and this was by no means a coincidence. Obama was following the lead of his mentor, the renowned Zbigniew Brzezinski (1928–2017), who spent most of his career in the Democratic Party, serving as National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, but who was also a co-founder of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight against the USSR. On January 15, 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski responded to an interview with *Le Nouvel Observateur*: “According to the official version of the story, the CIA’s aid to the mujahideen began sometime in 1980—that is, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, kept secret until now, is quite different: it was in fact on July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive on covert assistance to opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.” And in response to journalist Vincent Jauvert’s question, “Do you also have no regrets about having encouraged Islamist fundamentalism, about having provided weapons and advice to future terrorists?”, Brzezinski replied, “What is more important in the context of world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? A few fanatical Islamists or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?” (6)
Zbigniew Brzezinski was representative of this new anti-Soviet Left during the Cold War—and anti-Russian today—yet capable of forming alliances with Islamists. He was also the embodiment of that part of the deep state that was rather pro-Palestinian and critical of Israel. As early as 2002, Brzezinski was already describing the complete reversal of Israel’s image within the international Karpman triangle. According to him, the Jewish state was in the process of losing its role as victim and assuming that of perpetrator in global public opinion, following a disproportionate response against the Palestinians that poorly concealed a genuine plan for ethnic cleansing: “ From a moral standpoint, it is a tragedy that the Jewish people—who have suffered so much and who have held the moral high ground for much of this conflict—are losing that position in the eyes of most of the world, because they are stronger, tougher, and have killed far more Palestinians than the Palestinians have killed Israelis. ” (7)
In an article dated April 23, 2006, Zbigniew Brzezinski came out in strong defense of Iran and its nuclear program, and sought to discredit and undermine any new false-flag attack—similar to 9/11—that would this time be attributed to the Iranians and serve as a pretext for new military operations involving preemptive strikes: “In the event of another terrorist attack in the United States, it is almost certain that Iran will be immediately accused of being responsible, with the aim of stirring up collective hysteria to justify military intervention. But there are four compelling reasons to oppose a preemptive airstrike against Iran’s nuclear facilities: (…)” (8)
In 2012, at a conference organized by the National Iranian American Council, Brzezinski drove the point home and reaffirmed his role as an advocate for Iran against Israel. Worse still, he dared to question the automatic solidarity between the U.S. and Israel and asserted the U.S.’s independence regarding Israel’s fate and its decisions: “I don’t think there is an implicit obligation for the United States to follow everything the Israelis do like a dumb mule. (…) If they decide to start a war, simply on the assumption that we will automatically be dragged into it, I think it is our duty, out of friendship, to tell them: you will not make national decisions on our behalf. I think the United States has the right to its own national security policy.” (9)
By summarizing Zbigniew Brzezinski’s profound commitments—which echo those of Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, as well as those of George Soros, we gain a better understanding of the evolution of the American libertarian left—which is Islamophile, critical of Israel to the point of overt anti-Zionism, anti-Soviet, and Russophobic—and which, with the addition of the LGBT movement, has become what is now known as the “woke” left, or “Islamo-leftism.” And one also comes to understand the precarious position of the Zionist lobby in the U.S., which some portray as all-powerful, but which has never truly had a hold on this left-wing faction of the Deep State—once embodied by Brzezinski and Barack Obama, and now by New York’s Muslim mayor, Zohran Mamdani, and his friends gathered in “The Squad,” versions 1 and 2. (10)
In conclusion: the new agreement with Iran signed by Trump is therefore very likely to be lasting, for one very simple reason—everyone wants it, except for the most extremist wing of Zionism, which is becoming a minority in the U.S. Indeed, public opinion is shifting away from Israel, even within the Republican Party, under the influence of the MAGA base. An article in The Guardian summed up the new reality: “Young people’s frustration with the military-industrial complex, the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy, and the influence of money in politics has reached a fever pitch with U.S. support for Israel’s war in Gaza.” In a dramatic shift, nearly 60% of Americans now view Israel unfavorably, including 80% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans under the age of 50, according to a Pew Research Center study.” (11)
4) Does this agreement bring about a lasting change in the geopolitical balance of the Middle East, particularly in relations between Iran, Israel, the Persian Gulf monarchies, China, and Russia?
Let’s see what the Iranians themselves have to say about the situation. They are in the best position to know. Here is an excerpt from the French-language version of Press TV, a government-run media outlet that is considered an authoritative source for Middle East news because it accurately reflects the views held within Iranian power circles, particularly among the Pasdaran: “Mission Unfinished: The United States sought Iran’s ‘unconditional surrender,’ but has witnessed the emergence of a new regional power. (…) This realization has profoundly altered the calculations of all regional actors. The Persian Gulf monarchies, among others, must now contend with a strategic context in which Washington’s security guarantees are no longer reliable. The agreement reached with Iran acknowledges that dialogue with Tehran is not an option, but a necessity. The future of the region will not be shaped by American preferences, but by Iranian realities.” (12)
5) What is your assessment of the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear issue? Will we see a final agreement between Iran and the United States?
The U.S.-Israeli attack on February 28, 2026, was completely counterproductive on every level, particularly regarding the Iranian nuclear issue. It effectively radicalized the Iranian leadership, which, according to numerous sources, was not actually seeking to acquire nuclear weapons but has since reconsidered its position in recent weeks. Larry Johnson mentioned in an article the contents of a U.S. intelligence report that had been leaked to him and to Pepe Escobar: “I want to emphasize that I strongly support past assessments by U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran, until now, had no interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. However, it appears that the surprise attack on February 28—which followed the failed “color revolution” attempted in late December 2025—played a decisive role in Iran’s change of position on this issue. Here is an excerpt from what Pepe Escobar and I received last Thursday: (…)”. (13)
That said, the issue of Iran’s nuclear program is a charade—one that fools no one, at least in the upper echelons of international power, where everyone knows full well that Iran is what is known as a “threshold country” or “threshold state.” In other words, Iran has long possessed the scientific, theoretical, and practical capabilities to acquire the atomic bomb very quickly, but has deliberately remained just below the threshold of actual implementation so as not to alarm the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It seems that this era is now over.
6) For several days now, major memorial ceremonies for former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei have been taking place in various cities across Iran, as well as in Iraq. How do you interpret this large-scale popular mobilization? What message do you think it sends to Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu?
The scale of the Iranian and Iraqi public turnout at Ali Khamenei’s funeral, along with the presence of high-ranking officials from the BRICS nations and their partners, sends a strong geopolitical message. The ceremonies honoring the Iranian Supreme Leader mark a new chapter for the Axis of Resistance and are a true snub to Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. Indeed, until 2024, the term “Axis of Resistance” referred to the alliance of Iran, the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Ba’ath Party in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Palestinian and Iraqi armed groups, all united against Western and Zionist imperialism, as well as against the pro-Western Islamic petro-monarchies in the Persian Gulf that are Iran’s rivals. For its part, this Islamo-Western imperialism—using its clandestine paramilitary operations as well as private actors such as the cement manufacturer Lafarge—unscrupulously supported ISIS and Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria for years in order to topple Bashar al-Assad, a central figure in the Axis of Resistance. After Syria’s fall in 2024, the Axis of Resistance lost its territorial continuity, which complicated its organization and led to signs of weakness. Iran’s victory breathes new life into this movement by revitalizing its martyrology and founding narrative. The Axis of Resistance is reorganizing and growing stronger. This will automatically benefit China’s New Silk Road and the BRICS. The U.S. and Israel no longer scare anyone. The EU-NATO bloc is in the midst of a collapse at every level. It is now the West that will find itself on the defensive—which isn’t good news for Westerners, but that’s just how it is; such is the ebb and flow of international power dynamics. A page of world history is turning before our very eyes.
(1) « Interview de Lucien Cerise, chercheur en ingénierie sociale »
(2) « Où va ce monde », en direct de Téhéran avec Adnan Azzam et Hamed Ghashghavi. Une émission de JSF animée par Claude Janvier et Éric Montana, avec la participation de Maria Poumier et Lucien Cerise.
(3) « Discours de Lucien Cerise en Iran à la conférence New Horizon en 2017 »
(4) « Ben Gvir crée de l’antisémitisme et Netanyahou ne fait rien pour l’arrêter »
(5) « Israel’s Suicidal Rupture with the U.S. »
(6) « Oui, la CIA est entrée en Afghanistan avant les Russes »
(7) « Brzezinski: U.S. mishandling Mideast »
(8) « Been there, done that »
(9) « Brzezinski: US Should Not Follow Israel on Iran Like a “Stupid Mule” »
(10) « Squad 2.0: Meet America's next wave of radical Democrats shaping the party's future »
(11) « Will the Mamdani effect make 2028 the year of the leftwing president? »
(12) « Mission inachevée : les États-Unis visaient la "capitulation sans condition" de l’Iran, mais ont vu émerger une nouvelle puissance régionale »
(13) « Does Iran Have a Nuke? Well Placed Source Says, “Yes” »
Comment
Reply