The 12-Day War Between Iran and Israel: A Calculated Battle Toward Power Engineering
By Shoresh Mohi
In the early days of June 2025, Iran and Israel entered into an official conflict—one that was anything but conventional. Unlike typical wars, this confrontation between two long-standing enemies resulted in neither the destruction of critical infrastructure, nor crippling military operations, nor the mass casualties typically expected from a “serious regional conflict.” At first glance, the war appeared to signal an escalation of regional crises and the collapse of any efforts to de-escalate tensions. However, as time passed, mounting evidence pointed to an unspoken and calculated coordination—not a ceasefire, but a controlled war with objectives far beyond the battlefield. A War with the Lights On: Why Weren’t Critical Infrastructures Targeted? One of the most striking aspects of this war was that neither side attacked the other’s critical infrastructure—such as dams, power plants, energy control centers, or sensitive cyber facilities. Even in cases where military or security installations appeared to be hit, signs of “prior notice” or “deliberate evacuation” were reported before the strikes. For instance, in two major Israeli strikes on missile facilities in western Iran and a Revolutionary Guard signal intelligence center in Bandar Abbas, field sources reported “complete evacuation before the attack.” Similarly, Iran’s missile strikes on military bases in the Negev Desert and Galilee, despite their high media profile, resulted in virtually no casualties. This level of coordination in military operations can only be understood through the lens of an active communication channel driven by political calculation. A War to Cement Iran’s Future Leadership? Within this framework, a fundamental question arises: What was the true purpose of this war? Some suggest a joint project to eliminate opposition to the succession of Mojtaba Khamenei or Hassan Khomeini. In recent years, the Islamic Republic has entered a critical phase—not only economically and internationally but also in terms of its internal power structure. The issue of succession for Ali Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader, has become one of the regime’s most pressing internal challenges. Two figures are seen as the main contenders: Mojtaba Khamenei—the Supreme Leader’s son, a powerful behind-the-scenes figure—and Hassan Khomeini—the grandson of the Islamic Republic’s founder, who retains legitimacy among parts of the reformist base. The 12-day war created an opportunity to reconstruct the country’s security atmosphere, close the space for internal dissent, justify political purges, and generate a “security consensus” around the need for stability and uncontested succession. During this period, dozens of journalists, retired commanders, and even some clerical figures close to rival factions faced restrictions, arrests, or censorship. In the same vein, the meaningful silence of the United States and Washington’s lack of serious engagement were interpreted by some observers as a tacit approval of Iran’s internal power transition project. A project that, although carried out under the banner of war, was ultimately aimed at “clearing the field of misaligned elements.” The Result: A War Without a Winner—But with a Clear Loser: Civil Society At the end of this theatrical war, Israel did not lose deterrence, and Iran did not suffer a military defeat. But the true loser was evident: Iranian civil society—journalists, political activists, and segments of the elite who could have played a role in a future beyond authoritarianism. Now, with the execution machine receiving a green light, the physical elimination of dissenters has entered a new phase. As field reports have shown, the Islamic Republic used the war as a tool for “internal purification” and “rearranging the structure of power”—not to defend the country, but to defend a future envisioned under “absolute leadership.” Conclusion: Engineering the Future Under the Shadow of a Manufactured War If we view the 12-day war not as a military conflict but as a carefully staged performance designed to shape the Islamic Republic’s future, then the behavior of all actors—from Tehran to Tel Aviv and Washington—becomes comprehensible. Operational coordination, avoidance of major damage, and focus on domestic political outcomes all suggest that this war was less about winning and more about engineering the future of power. Shoresh Mohi
1
0