The Farda Briefing

Welcome back to The Farda Briefing, an RFE/RL newsletter that tracks the key issues in Iran and explains why they matter.

I'm RFE/RL correspondent Kian Sharifi. In this edition, I’m looking at how Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei effectively vanished during the course of 12-day war with Israel and what impact his absence may have on his image.

What You Need To Know

• Lingering Uncertainty Amid Silence During Crisis: After more than a week out of public view -- including the crucial days of the cease-fire -- Khamenei released a new video message on June 26, his first since the cessation of hostilities. Yet for many Iranians and outside observers, his reappearance does little to dispel the uncertainty and skepticism that have surrounded his leadership during the nation’s gravest crisis in decades.

• More Than 700 Detained On Suspicion Of Spying: During the course of the war, Iran arrested over 700 people accused of spying for Israel. At least three people previously convicted of collaborating with Israel have been executed, and rights groups say many face rushed trials and harsh interrogations. Officials claim the arrests are vital for national security, but rights groups warn of due process violations.

• Suspending Cooperation With IAEA: Iran’s constitutional watchdog, the Guardian Council, has approved a bill suspending all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the wake of Israeli and US attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites. Once implemented, the law halts inspections, reporting, and oversight under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) until Iran receives safety guarantees for its nuclear sites and rights to enrich uranium.

The Big Issue

A Return -- From Seclusion

Khamenei, 86, once the omnipresent face of the Islamic republic, retreated into near-total seclusion during the 12-day war with Israel amid reports that he was on Israel's hit list. His only appearances -- a pair of video statements, the second apparently filmed in a bunker with downgraded production quality -- did little to reassure the nation.

The Iranian leader reemerged more than a week after his message in a pre-recorded video with improved audio and video quality, though his background appeared identical to his second video rather than the first one, which seemingly had been recorded in his office.

He congratulated Iranians on what he called a “victory” over Israel and the United States and declared that Israel was “crushed” under Iranian strikes. He also downplayed the significance of attacks on Tehran’s nuclear program -- despite other Iranian officials saying earlier that the facilities had suffered extensive damages.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was constantly in the public eye, either issuing statements or visiting sites damaged by Iranian retaliatory strikes. While Khamenei, who serves as Iran’s commander-in-chief, was in hiding, Netanyahu was effectively campaigning for his next election.

Even senior officials, including Iran’s foreign minister, were reportedly unable to reach him directly. An unconfirmed report even claimed that US President Donald Trump sought his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s help last week to arrange a meeting between Iranian and US officials, but the effort failed because Khamenei allegedly could not be reached.

Why It Matters: Despite this reemergence, Khamenei’s absence during the most critical moments of the war remains a glaring issue. For nearly a week, he made no public statements, even as Iran suffered heavy losses, its nuclear facilities were bombed, and a cease-fire was brokered with US involvement.

This period of silence has not been forgotten. The Iranian public and commentators have openly mocked Khamenei’s retreat, with many questioning his capacity to lead and the resilience of the Islamic republic itself. The myth of his invincibility, carefully cultivated over decades, appears deeply shaken.

Khamenei’s belated reappearance does little to erase the perception of a leadership vacuum. During his absence, President Masoud Pezeshkian and other government figures stepped into the spotlight, managing both the ceasefire and the regime’s messaging.

What's Being Said: Khamenei’s absence during the war may well have cracked his image among the Islamic republic’s core support base, according to Mostafa Daneshgar, an academic and religious scholar based in the United States.

He told RFE/RL’s Radio Farda that Khamenei had “sold dreams” to his supporters, such as the “myth of security” and ability to stave off foreign aggression, but the war with Israel “shattered” those dreams.

“Many in Iran had already grown disillusioned with Khamenei, but now his prestige has been damaged even among his own supporters,” he said. “His supporters now have plenty of questions.”

Expert Opinion: “One can argue that Ayatollah Khamenei was responsible for both bringing this catastrophe upon his regime and saving it at a moment of peril,” Ali Vaez, Iran Program director at the International Crisis Group, told RFE/RL. “While Khamenei survived the conflict, both physically and politically, his legacy is ruinous for the country.”

That's all from me for now.

Until next time,

Kian Sharifi

Welcome back to The Farda Briefing, an RFE/RL newsletter that tracks the key issues in Iran and explains why they matter.

I'm RFE/RL correspondent Kian Sharifi. In this edition, I’m looking at the debate on whether using force to bring about political change in Iran is realistic or misguided.

What You Need To Know

• Is Regime Change In Iran Israel’s End Goal? The question of whether Israel’s true objective in its current conflict with Iran is regime change -- beyond the stated aim of crippling Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities -- has become a central debate among analysts and observers. Critics say Israel’s pursuit of regime change in Iran, whether explicit or implicit, is a profound gamble with no guaranteed payoff. However, supporters argue that the clerical establishment is at its weakest, arguing that this presents a rare opportunity to topple the Islamic republic.

• Will The US Join The War? That’s the question on everyone’s minds, especially Iranians, after US President Donald Trump this week demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” He later said he “may” or “may not” join the war. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned Trump that the US would suffer “irreparable harm” if it were to get involved. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, meanwhile, continues to insist that Tehran is “committed to diplomacy.” Araqchi is reportedly traveling to Geneva to meet his counterparts from Britain, Germany, and France (E3). Meanwhile, large parts of Iran have faced an Internet blackout imposed by authorities amid Israeli air strikes and an information scramble.

• Why Israel Needs The US To Hit Fordow: The Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) is Iran’s nuclear insurance policy -- buried deep, heavily fortified, and nearly impossible to destroy without US involvement. Israel can’t do it alone, and even with America’s help, it’s a massive gamble with global consequences. Here’s a look at the Fordow facility and why it’s difficult to destroy.

The Big Issue

Forcing Change In Iran: The Case And The Cost

As the conflict between Israel and Iran intensifies, a pressing question looms: is military intervention in Iran a viable path to regime change?

While Israel has focused its efforts on Tehran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, the scale and rhetoric surrounding recent operations have prompted speculation that a broader goal -- toppling the Islamic republic -- may be in play.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior officials have stopped short of explicitly calling for regime change. Still, their language and the scope of action suggest that dismantling Iran’s current leadership could be a longer-term aspiration.

This possibility has ignited intense debate. While some view the Islamic republic as more vulnerable than ever, others warn that military intervention carries the risk of exacerbating instability, provoking regional escalation, and possibly strengthening Iran’s most hard-line factions.

Why It Matters: Military efforts alone may not be enough to unseat Iran’s entrenched leadership. Despite recurring nationwide protests -- most notably the 2022 uprising sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini -- the clerical establishment has proven both deeply unpopular and brutally resilient.

The protests revealed a deeply disillusioned public, but also demonstrated the Islamic republic’s readiness to use overwhelming force. More than 550 protesters were reportedly killed and over 20,000 arrested during the unrest, according to human rights organizations.

Advocates of external pressure argue that military action could create momentum for internal change. But without parallel efforts -- such as supporting Iranian opposition networks, expanding communication channels, or funding civil resistance -- military strikes may not be enough to tip the balance.

In the absence of a broader strategy, critics fear that foreign intervention could do more harm than good -- empowering hard-liners, delegitimizing homegrown dissent, and alienating ordinary Iranians.

What's Being Said: “There’s a lot of talk about regime change, but very little investment in the kind of infrastructure that would make it feasible,” said Ilan Berman, senior vice president at the American Foreign Policy Council and a board member of RFE/RL.

Speaking to RFE/RL's Radio Farda, Berman stressed that external support for Iranian opposition movements is a “necessary prerequisite” for any sustained uprising.

From inside the Iranian diaspora, opinions vary. Hamed Sheibani-Rad of the pro-monarchy Iran Novin Party framed the situation starkly: “Between Iran and the Islamic republic, only one will remain.” He views Israeli pressure as a rare and fleeting opportunity for change.

But others caution against conflating regime opposition with support for foreign military intervention. US-based defense analyst Hossein Aryan argued that strikes on Iran risk harming the very people who oppose the Islamic republic.

“Criticism of the Islamic republic is a domestic issue. The people of Iran don’t need a guardian abroad -- especially not someone like Netanyahu,” he told Radio Farda.

In the end, while Iran’s government appears increasingly fragile -- marked by low election turnout and persistent unrest -- most experts agree: lasting change will likely come from within. Military pressure may influence the timeline, but it is unlikely to be the catalyst for regime collapse on its own.

Expert Opinion: “[The] bottom line here is that the death of Khamenei won’t guarantee a better alternative -- the result could be an even more hard-line or militaristic regime,” says Nicole Grajewski, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

That's all from me for now.

Until next time,

Kian Sharifi

If you enjoyed this briefing and don't want to miss the next edition, subscribe here. It will be sent to your inbox every Friday.