MEF Dispatch: The U.S. Strike on Iran; Israelis Stand with the Iranian People; What's Next for the Houthis?

The U.S. Strike on Iran; Israelis Stand with the Iranian People; What's Next for the Houthis?

By Winfield Myers ● Jun 25, 2025

Smart Brevity® count: 6.5 mins...1706 words

Jim Hanson calls the intelligence leak claiming the U.S. strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities did minimal damage “disgraceful.” To the contrary, the mission, he says, was “a tremendous accomplishment.”

Faezeh Alavi describes how the war brought the Israeli and Iranian people closer together, as Israelis continue to voice support for oppressed Iranians. Dalga Khatinoglu catalogues the ways Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons has crippled the country’s economy and plunged millions into poverty. Michael Rubin writes that the Houthis in Yemen will find a way to survive financially if their Iranian patrons cuts them off—and warns the West to be on guard.

We also feature the work of Jonathan Spyer, Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, Gadeer Kamal-Mreeh, and Giulio Meotti.

Was U.S. Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Sites Effective?

Jim Hanson challenges the recent intelligence report on the Iran strike, suggesting it was politically motivated.

Why it matters: Hanson argues that the report downplays President Trump's decisive military action, which contrasts with previous administrations' approaches.

Criticism: Hanson accuses anti-Trump journalists and intelligence officials of spreading rumors to diminish the strike's significance.

IAEA agreement: Despite rarely aligning, Hanson agrees with International Atomic Energy Agency Director Rafael Grassi, who notes significant setbacks to Iran's nuclear program.

Quote: "It’s disgraceful in the front of something that was a tremendous accomplishment," Hanson asserted on Fox News.

The bottom line: Hanson emphasizes that misinformation undermines the recognition of strategic military actions and their role in curbing nuclear threats, which should be accurately reported.

To watch the full segment, click here.

Has the War Brought the Iranian and Israeli People Closer Together?

Israel's June 13, 2025, military strikes against Iran's nuclear sites unexpectedly brought Iranians and Israelis closer.

Despite the Iranian regime's nationalistic propaganda, both communities express a shared hope for future peace and freedom.

Why it matters: This unity challenges the Iranian regime’s narrative and highlights aspirations for a brighter future.

Messages of hope and friendship, like those from Israeli officials and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s symbolic social media posts, resonate deeply.

Iranian voices: Despite regime isolation, Iranians continue to share messages of hope, as with one professor’s encouraging words:

"The future of this country is in your hands, you are the future. Sometimes the bright days would come after the challenges a nation faced for decades. Light will triumph over darkness soon,” a Tehran professor told his students in a class group chat, fostering resilience and optimism.

Solidarity abroad: Since the internet shutdown in Iran, the Iranian diaspora has played a key role in reflecting Iranians’ feelings and will. People have organized protests in various cities.

In all of them, the flag of Israel and the lion-and-sun national flag of Iran were present, and in many of these protests, Iranians and Israelis stood together for a free Iran.

Sara Netanyahu’s AI-generated image of unity between Israel and Iran symbolizes peace aspirations.

The bottom line: Fear of regime retaliation persists, but the collective call for freedom and mutual understanding strengthens ties.

The surprising camaraderie transcends political divides, setting a foundation for future relationships.

To read the full article, click here.

Will Iranians Finally Get Rid of the Nuclear Burden?

The Islamic Republic's nuclear program, once a national pride, now lies in ruins after Israeli and U.S. airstrikes.

Decades of investment have been questioned as significant infrastructure and key personnel were lost within two weeks.

Why it matters: Iran's focus on nuclear development has resulted in economic setbacks, with sanctions costing between $2 trillion and $3 trillion.

The Bushehr plant, a tangible achievement, cost more than $5 billion but has only delivered $5 billion worth of electricity.

Economic impact: Iran’s GDP is projected to shrink to $341 billion by 2025, a stark contrast to its $625 billion in 2011.

From 2012, sanctions have denied Iran up to $700 billion in oil revenues, with foreign direct investment plummeting to an average of $1.5 billion annually after 2018.

The bottom line: While the nuclear program was meant to bolster legitimacy, it is actually a stone, slowly sinking Iran’s potential and economy.

The regime faces mounting pressures, as domestic recognition grows of the program's detrimental impact on economic potential.

To read the full article, click here.

Will the Houthis Survive If Iran Cuts Them Off?

The Houthis, a Zaydi Shi’ite tribal group from northern Yemen, may face reduced Iranian assistance amid Iran's internal challenges.

Their control relies heavily on smuggled weaponry through Hudaydah and the Al-Mazyunah Free Zone.

Why it matters: With Iranian aid dwindling, the Houthis might turn to alternative revenue streams to maintain their power.

The Somali piracy model presents a potential path, as small Yemeni ports could serve as new bases for illicit activities.

Criminal pursuits: Besides piracy, the Houthis might exploit drug smuggling networks, similar to Hezbollah's operations, to sustain their finances.

This shift could exacerbate regional instability, particularly in the Arabian Peninsula and beyond.

The bottom line: It is wishful thinking to believe the Houthis will simply fade away; they crave both power and money. At the very least, the group’s leaders will need to raise funds to pay their rank-and-file.

They may shroud themselves in the trappings of government, but they are essentially a criminal gang. But even criminal gangs need to make payroll.

The question now is whether the United States and Europe will simply celebrate the Houthis’ potential loss of a patron or recognize that organized criminal groups and cartels are agile, and will do what is necessary to find new revenue streams when the old ones disappear.

To read the full article, click here.

Syrian Reactions to the Israel-Iran War

Syria's government remains silent on Israel's preventative strikes against Iran, despite both sides using Syrian airspace.

This neutrality suggests a strategic decision, as Syria's ties with both Iran and Israel are strained.

Why it matters: The Assad regime's fall has left Syria with little to gain from taking sides, potentially benefiting from external conflicts distracting foreign powers from its internal affairs.

Many Syrians, especially those opposing Assad, prefer both sides weaken each other without harming Syrians.

Public sentiments: Some former Assad supporters still sympathize with Iran's resistance against Israel, yet others, like Syrian Druze, express hostility toward Iran.

Posts on social media reflect a desire for mutual damage between Israel and Iran.

The bottom line: Syria's official neutrality in the conflict might be its best strategy, allowing internal focus without external entanglement.

In the overall scheme of things, Syria is no longer of great significance in the conflict between Israel and Iran.

To read the full article, click here.

IRGC Alive and Well in Syria: Terror Proxies Could Flourish After Damascus

In an unprecedented incident, two rockets were fired from Syria at the Golan Heights on June 3, marking the first such act since Assad's regime fell.

The rockets, launched from Tasil, suggest opportunistic moves by groups amid Syria's instability.

Why it matters: The Islamic Liberation Front in Syria has emerged as a key suspect, continuing Iran-backed activities despite Tehran's regional setbacks.

While their capabilities remain limited, their actions reflect ongoing IRGC influence in Syria.

Group dynamics: The Islamic Liberation Front claims responsibility, positioning itself against both Israel and Syria's current government.

Their rhetoric and symbolic ties to IRGC suggest a persistent threat, reminiscent of prior pro-Iran entities.

The bottom line: In the Syrian context, stability remains distant. The elements of the population associated with the former regime are vulnerable and face daily acts of revenge from the Sunni Arab victors in the civil war.

This fragmented and unstable reality is the kind of environment in which the IRGC has flourished. As of now, their forces in Syria appear to be only in the first stages of gathering anew.

It would be advisable to keep an eye on them.

To read the full article, click here.

Action over Words: In Moments of Crisis, Greece and Cyprus Stepped up for Israel

During the Israel-Iran war, Israel closed Ben Gurion Airport, leaving up to 150,000 citizens stranded abroad.

Greece and Cyprus emerged as key hubs for coordinating Israeli citizens' safe return, demonstrating their strategic alliance with Israel.

Why it mattered: The "3+1" framework, involving Israel, Greece, Cyprus, and the United States, evolved into a robust partnership beyond its initial focus on natural gas.

This alliance facilitated humanitarian, logistical, and military coordination, proving essential during crises.

Operational strength: "Operation Safe Return," led by Israeli Transportation Minister Miri Regev, showcased the alliance’s capability.

Military airlifts and maritime corridors were used to repatriate Israelis, highlighting the operational depth of this partnership.

The bottom line: Formalizing the "3+1" alliance would institutionalize this level of coordination, ensuring stability amidst regional volatility.

In moments of crisis, Israel’s strongest allies in the Eastern Mediterranean stepped up—not only with words, but with action.

The recently introduced Eastern Mediterranean Gateway Act would strengthen these ties, promoting strategic connectivity and regional development.

To read the full article, click here.

Will ‘Boulevard Khamenei’ Be Paris’s Newest Street?

As chants of "Death to Khamenei" echoed in Tehran, European capitals witnessed pro-Iran demonstrations, raising alarms.

London protests, led by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, opposed Israeli actions, with participants displaying Iranian symbols.

Why it matters: Suella Braverman condemned these "marches of hate," linking support for Iran to terrorism, much like al-Qaeda or ISIS.

In Paris, protests combined pro-Palestinian and pro-Iran sentiments, sparking backlash from Iranian dissidents.

Public reaction: The Iranian women’s group Femme Azadi decried the support, stating: “When the pro-Palestinians suddenly support the Iranians ... they are not supporting the people, but the executioners.”

On the Place de la République in Paris, activists proclaim their support for the poor little Islamist state [Iran] attacked by Zionist fascists.

The Jewish Leadership Council emphasized Iran's threat, referencing foiled plots and security concerns.

The bottom line: Pro-Iran rallies in the West pose significant security risks and challenge core democratic values.

Vigilance is critical as these movements expand beyond Europe, reaching New York, where an Iranian dissident recently escaped an Iranian assassination attempt.

To read the full article, click here.

Whether or not the fragile peace between Israel and Iran holds, we will continue to provide you with rigorous yet accessible analyses. Please share this with a friend and let us know what you think of our ongoing coverage.

Thank you,

Winfield Myers
Managing Editor, Middle East Forum
Director, Campus Watch

Was this edition useful?

Your email will be recorded and shared with the sender

Powered by