Israel‘s MASSIVE Own Goal: Iran Strikes Back. | Prof. Seyed Marandi

The exchange with Professor Seyed Marandi cuts through the fog of immediate crisis to pose a sharper question about strategic consequence: Israel’s surprise strike on Iranian soil has not only provoked a robust Iranian military response but also risked a fundamental miscalculation that could reshape regional alignments, global energy markets, and the politics of neutrality. Far from a contained tit‑for‑tat, the incident exposes the limits of surgical strikes in an era where key infrastructure is hardened and where narrative control matters as much as munitions. The conversation offers a portrait of a conflict in which symbolism, deterrence, and perception are fighting alongside missiles and drones. ## Assessment of the current situation The dialogue opens with a lucid scene-setting: Tehran was calm when the professor spoke, but beneath the surface lay the certainty of further strikes. From the Iranian perspective, the initial attack was a blatant breach of sovereignty that demanded a forceful response. Damage assessments, Marandi emphasizes, are mixed: while images of devastation circulate online, some are misattributed or exaggerated, and much of Iran’s critical infrastructure has been moved underground over years of contingency planning. That does not mean the population feels unscathed; civilian casualties and destroyed homes, some killing dozens including children, have fed popular outrage and a moral framing that compounds military response with political messaging. What emerges from the conversation is a dual reality. Tactically, Iran shows it can absorb and respond to attacks: air defenses are performing, missile and drone salvos are penetrating defensive screens, and the psychological effect of retaliation is real. Strategically, Iran appears to want to contain escalation to avoid a broader regional conflagration. The government’s infrastructure protections and the dispersal of assets suggest a calculation that anticipates attacks but does not seek a spiral into total war. Still, the exchange makes clear that this is not a short skirmish; both sides now face a sequence of actions and reactions that could run for weeks or months. ## What is Iran targeting in Israel? A central theme in the conversation is differentiation of intent. Iran’s strikes, as described, are explicitly retaliatory and aimed at military or regime-strengthening targets: bases, refineries, and other nodes linked to the initial aggression. Marandi stresses that, by doctrine, Iran aims at comparable objects to those struck in Iran. That contrast with Israeli strikes—accused repeatedly in the discussion of deliberately hitting apartment blocks and civilian loci—becomes a foundational claim about moral and legal distinction. Whether every Iranian missile hits its intended target is both a technical question and a political one; Iran attributes any civilian damage to electronic warfare jamming that deflects weapons off-course. This posture—retaliation calibrated to specific targets—serves two purposes. Operationally, it signals capability and resolve while attempting to avoid broadening the conflict to include American assets or allied regional bases. Politically, it allows Iran to present its actions to the international community as legitimate self‑defense rather than expansionist aggression. The conversation highlights how crucial that narrative is to Iran’s diplomatic strategy in the days ahead. ## What about the nuclear program in Iran? The nuclear dimension is presented as a flashpoint both real and politicized. The conversation reiterates Tehran’s insistence that it has not sought nuclear weapons, framing its program as peaceful and defensive, and pointing to historical decisions—such as refusing chemical weapons during the Iran‑Iraq War—as evidence of principle. More practically, Marandi argues, the most sensitive elements of Iran’s program have long been hardened and moved underground, making superficial airstrikes ineffective against the core of capacity. Beyond technical survivability, however, there is a reputational battle. Accusations that Israeli strikes aimed to contaminate nuclear sites are framed by Marandi as part of Western complicity in aggression. Whether or not contamination occurred becomes secondary to the larger claim: attacking a nuclear facility carries a symbolic weight that mobilizes international opinion and raises the specter of environmental and humanitarian consequences. In short, strikes on nuclear-linked sites have amplified Tehran’s ability to depict itself as aggrieved and to rally diplomatic sympathy. ## What about the defenses of Iran? The conversation conveys a confident assessment of Iranian air defenses. Marandi claims significant success in downing incoming aircraft, drones, and missiles and even notes reports—contested in other forums—of sophisticated strikes against advanced platforms. Even where some missiles penetrated defenses, the Iranian counterstrikes reportedly had larger payloads and tactical effect than Israeli equivalents. This mix of interception capability and offensive reach changes the tactical calculus: Israel cannot assume impunity for remote strikes, and Iran can project retaliatory costs across space. That said, the professor acknowledges the “war is war” caveat—no defense is perfect. The dynamic interplay of jamming, decoys, and real munitions complicates a clean assessment. The key strategic takeaway is that both sides now recognize a new operational reality where strikes are costly, contested, and likely to be followed by further cyber, electronic, and asymmetric responses. ## Will Israel escalate to nuclear level? Is Iran being careful about the United States? The most consequential hypothetical—nuclear escalation—was treated with both moral condemnation and sober deterrence analysis. Marandi calls the notion of Israeli nuclear use “insane,” but does not dismiss the possibility as purely rhetorical. He underscores that any attempt to employ nuclear weapons would immediately alter Iranian doctrine and provoke responses that would nullify any narrow tactical gain. Moreover, using nuclear weapons would break global political thresholds in ways that could isolate Israel internationally far beyond current diplomatic strains. On the relationship with the United States, the conversation signals restraint: Iran has, so far, avoided striking American bases despite public threats, suggesting a deliberate strategy to keep the exchange geographically narrowed to Israeli targets. The rationale is pragmatic: a direct US‑Iran war would disrupt global energy supplies for years and precipitate catastrophic economic fallout worldwide. For Tehran, then, deterrence is balanced by the need to avoid triggering economic and political catastrophes that would rebound domestically. Yet the professor also warns that there are red lines: direct American offensive action would change the calculus overnight, and Tehran would treat regional Gulf states that host US forces as complicit. ## How can the situation be de‑escalated? How will Iran try to get international support? De‑escalation, in the conversation’s logic, hinges on perceived cost and success. Iran wants the Israeli government to understand that the strike was a strategic blunder that brought a heavy price. Only when the regime in Tel Aviv internalizes that failure—politically and militarily—will the pathway to a ceasefire be credible from Tehran’s perspective. That puts the onus on demonstrating capability rather than on negotiated concessions alone. Diplomatically, Marandi frames Iran’s international strategy as one of narrative amplification. Tehran will lean into evidence that it was negotiating in good faith and was attacked unprovoked, and will exploit shifting public opinion—especially in the Global South and among Western publics disquieted by recent scenes from Gaza—to build pressure. The conversation suggests that Tehran believes it already has a head start:

Israel���s MASSIVE Own Goal: Iran Strikes Back Today I’m joined again by Professor Seyed Marandi, a Professor of English Literature and Orientalism at the University of Tehran. I am extremely grateful for him coming online as his country just went through a second night of all-out warfare with Israel after an absolutely sneaky surprise attack on Iran in the early hours of Friday. Timestamps: 00:00 Disclaimer 01:10 Intro 01:43 Assessment of the current situation 04:56 What is Iran targeting in Israel? 06:23 What about the nuclear program in Iran? 08:47 What about the defenses of Iran? 09:56 Will Israel escalate to nuclear level? 12:16 Is Iran being careful about USA? 15:03 How can the situation be de-escalated? 16:23 How will Iran try to get international support? 18:37 Thoughts on Israel's justification of the initial attack 20:55 Will the Europeans take a neutral stance on this conflict? 22:36 Outro #M2 Hello everybody, Pascal from Neutrality Studies here. It is June 15th, Sunday, and a few minutes ago I talked to Professor Seyed Marandi of Tehran University to ask him about what's going on in Iran and his take on the entire war with Israel. The connection was extremely choppy, quite bad, and broke off several times. Hence, the following video that you're going to see is not, as usual, just one continuous stream. We had to chop it into pieces in order to get the parts that were normal and understandable together. In some places, there are interferences and moments when it's difficult to understand him, but his insights are significant and his interpretation of what's going on and how Iran is dealing with the attack that was committed against it on Friday, I think, are worth trying to understand. So, with some cuts and edits, here's my discussion with Professor Seyed Marandi. Professor Marandi, thank you for coming online. How are you? I'm very good. #M3 Thank you, Pascal. I should just point out that the government has slowed the internet for security reasons over the last couple of days, so the connection isn't excellent. It's because of the current situation, and I apologize. #M2 No, this is absolutely nothing you should apologize for. I mean, obviously, you're going through a very, very difficult situation. I can still understand you. Could you tell us what the situation is like in Tehran? How are you on this Sunday morning? It is quiet right now in Tehran. #M3 -- 1 of 7 -- It's been quiet for, I suppose, seven or eight hours, or maybe more. I'm not quite sure. It will strike again today—there is no doubt about that. They hit different parts of the country. But the Iranians, as I think people have seen, have retaliated harshly. Last night, they hit Israel very hard in Iraq and different areas. We expect this war to go on for quite a while, and so the armed forces are working effectively. Air defenses are working better than before, and of course, the missiles and drones that Iran is firing are having the effect that we were expecting. #M2 Now, Iran is also being hit again, right? It was hit again yesterday. And one of your oil fields, a very large one, was targeted. Tehran, the city, was targeted again. What is your assessment of the damage incurred at the moment? #M3 The damage so far has been very limited. It may seem like a lot on social media, but Iran is a huge country. Also, a lot of the images you see are not necessarily real. Some of them are from other war zones. Missile systems that the Israelis think they have destroyed are just decoys. They spent a lot of money blowing up things that have no value in themselves. So the situation is good. Morale is high. People are outraged that the West would support a blatant act of aggression. Women and children have been murdered. In one case, they brought down an entire apartment building, killing 60 people, including 20 children, in just one attack. And the Israeli regime is indiscriminate, as you know, as we've seen from Gaza, as we've seen from Lebanon, as we've seen in their airstrikes everywhere and their attacks everywhere. They make no distinction between civilians and combatants. They view everyone as Amalek, as subhuman. And they see themselves as above and beyond the rest of us, the chosen people. So, when people are considered subhuman, then it doesn't really matter if it's a woman or a man or a child or a member of the military or the armed forces, or just some ordinary shopkeeper. #M2 Can you tell me what kind of targets Iran is after in Israel at the moment? #M3 All of the targets are linked to the military and to the strength of the regime, or are in retaliation for targets that have been struck in Iran, such as refineries. If any civilian target has been hit, it's because of electronic warfare being used to move or direct the missile or drone away from its intended target. But all of the targets are retaliatory. In other words, whatever the Israeli regime does to Iran—civilians aside—the Iranians strike back against similar targets. But the difference is -- 2 of 7 -- that the Israelis strike apartment blocks, and they do so intentionally. Sometimes it is to assassinate people, but they murder families, they murder neighbors to do so. But that's not the objective of Iranian strikes. Again, the only way in which an Iranian missile or drone would hit a civilian target is because of Israeli electronic warfare and jamming. #M2 And how about the nuclear program of Iran? We know that the site has been struck—not the power plant, but the nuclear facility of Iran. Is there any news about the radiation levels, about the danger to people who live nearby? #M3 But what the Israeli regime is trying to do is contaminate the environment and cause radioactive leakage. And that is something, obviously, that the West is supporting, because they see that the Israeli regime is attacking Iranian nuclear sites, but the Europeans, the European Union, the United States—they're all supporting these crimes. However, something that your viewers should always keep in mind is that ever since the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and Iran was surrounded, Iran began to gradually move all of its very key assets, whatever they may be, underground. And so this continued. And then a few years ago, when the Israelis were carrying out some drone strikes in Iran, this process was accelerated. And for the last year and a half, again, it's been accelerated even further. So all of Iran's key assets—whether they're missiles, drones, key factory lines, or linked to the nuclear program—everything that is of real importance is deep underground and inaccessible to the regime. So far, they've only struck buildings on the surface, but in the areas where we have the nuclear program, the buildings on the surface are not that important. So they've spent a lot of money striking, but they haven't had the effect that they've been looking for. #M2 And what about the defenses of Iran? I mean, on the one hand, we know now that the Israelis are able to penetrate Iran's defense system. On the other hand, we also get reports about Iran having downed two F-35 jets. Is that true? Do you know if that's actually the case? And how is the defense system doing at the moment? #M3 Yes, the air defenses are working well. They have downed Israeli jets, many drones, and many missiles. Of course, some get through—it's war. But even though the entire West is defending the -- 3 of 7 -- Israeli regime, helping it, and mobilizing to support this aggression, you see that Iranian missiles and drones are getting through, and their impact is much greater because the payload on Iranian missiles is much greater than the payload on Israeli missiles. #M2 Are you worried that the Israelis might escalate to the nuclear level? I mean, we know that they have nuclear weapons. Is that scenario conceivable? #M3 Well, that question of yours just shows how insane the regime is, and how insane Zionism is, that anyone could even contemplate such a scenario. I think that if there were a serious intention to use nuclear weapons against Iran, then Iran's nuclear doctrine would change immediately. And I think by now the Americans and the Israeli regime have discovered that there's nothing they could do about it. So, that is a serious deterrent. But also, I think that the rest of the world would see this as going way too far, and it would have consequences for the Israeli regime globally that are incomparable to the situation we have now. But the most important thing is that if the Israeli regime moves in that direction, then immediately Iran will change its doctrine. So Iran does not want nuclear weapons. Iran never wanted nuclear weapons at any point and never sought to build nuclear weapons. And there's very good evidence for that. During the Iran-Iraq war, when the West gave Saddam Hussein chemical weapons to use against Iran, the leader—when senior officials came to get permission to produce chemical weapons in Iran in response to Saddam's chemical weapons—said no. He said these are immoral weapons, and Iran never produced them. The feeling about nuclear weapons today is the same. But if it becomes an issue of survival, then of course the nuclear doctrine will change. So I think we see the huge moral gap between Iran and the Israeli regime. One has no red lines, no sense of morality, no sense of humanity, and the other is the exact opposite. #M2 What we're seeing right now is that Iran has refrained from striking any US military assets in the region, of which there are so many. Is the strategy at the moment to keep the exchange of blows between Iran and Israel? Because Iran was threatening that it would attack American installations as well. And by now we know the Americans are deeply involved in this entire attack. We know that it was jointly planned with the Americans, but Iran hasn't struck any American assets. Do you foresee this continuing? Is Iran being careful toward the United States? #M3 -- 4 of 7 -- Well, Iran doesn't want this war. It was imposed upon it in the first place. And Iran doesn't want to create a global economic meltdown, because if there is a war between Iran and the United States, that would mean the end of oil and gas from the Persian Gulf region and West Asia altogether—not just for one or two days or weeks or months, but for years. That would destroy the global economy in a way we've never seen before in modern history. Not even 1929 and the 1930s could be compared; it would be much worse. So Iran doesn't want such a situation, and it wants to contain the conflict as much as possible. But the Israeli regime is very extensive, and they're using their bases in Turkey, in Qatar, in the Emirates, in Bahrain, and elsewhere to assist the Israeli regime both offensively and defensively. And also they're using bases outside of the region. But there is a red line. If the Americans get involved directly against Iran, and they take offensive actions against Iran, then there's no doubt that the Iranians will immediately retaliate. The Iranians will consider those tiny Arab dictatorships in the Persian Gulf region as complicit, and they will have to pay the price. I think it's quite clear that these regimes would be swept away very quickly under such circumstances. What the Emirates, Kuwait, and others need to do is put pressure on the United States. Otherwise, if the United States makes the wrong move, that will be the end of these regimes. #M2 And how do you foresee that this could be dialed down? I mean, Iran is striking back after being hit by Israel, but what would be the sequence of actions in order to get back to a ceasefire? #M3 The Israeli regime is going to have to back down; this cannot happen again. It has to be felt among the Israeli regime that this was a catastrophic mistake and that they had no success. That is the only way this is going to end—for ordinary Zionists to understand that this sort of aggression comes with a price tag that is far too hi