The Fall of Op. “Lightning Strike”: How Tehran Dismantled a Hybrid War Strategy from Within

By Hasan Haidar

Amid escalating military pressures on Iran and rising US–“Israeli” threats, an analytical reading suggests that this escalation cannot be separated from the failure of an internal offensive plan that was relied upon to create a decisive breach within Iran. This plan aimed to pave the way for more effective and impactful external strikes. Recent developments show that what unfolded in Iranian cities was not merely spontaneous, demand-driven protests, but a key element of a “hybrid war” strategy that sought to bring down the fortress from within before targeting it from the outside.

The main premise of this plan relied on exploiting social and economic grievances as a “golden opportunity” to create a wide security gap. The goal was not political reform or economic improvement, but precise, organized operations targeting economic, security, military and service infrastructures—causing damage comparable to or exceeding that of the recent “Israeli” war. The most dangerous aspect, however, was the deliberate intent to maximize casualties, as human losses are the quickest means to dismantle social cohesion and spread chaos.

According to estimates, around 2,500 civilians, police and security personnel were martyred during the wave of violence and riots—more than double the number of martyrs in direct military confrontations with “Israel,” which did not exceed 1,100. This stark numerical contrast clearly shows that the “war from within” was far more brutal and savage in targeting Iranian society than any conventional military confrontation.

In this context, the groups driving the riots sought to provoke a violent and comprehensive response from the Iranian state. On January 8–9, some cities witnessed violent protests that took on an armed nature, with firearms and organized acts of vandalism against public and private property. The aim was to break the state’s authority, draw security and military forces into the streets, impose curfews and armored presence, and then present this situation to international media as proof of “city collapses” and “loss of control.” Western intelligence and media reports were built on this scenario, which misled several Western leaders, including the US president.

However, the Iranian security and military apparatus recognized the nature of this trap and kept their responses within a framework of “strategic patience.” The armed groups’ attempts were neutralized by avoiding full-scale confrontations and limiting responses to precise, direct action against sources of fire only. This approach deprived the plotters of the widespread images of chaos that could have been used as psychological warfare to manipulate international public opinion and increase external pressures.

The decisive turning point came just two days after the peak of the violence. Following the events of January 8–9, approximately 26 million people took to the streets and public squares across Iranian cities in crowds described as some of the largest in the country’s history. This mass turnout was not an emotional reaction but a clear political and security stance, expressing rejection of chaos and armed violence, and demonstrating that “the opposing street” was present and capable of reversing the equation.

This scene reshaped the balance on the ground, creating what can be called a “popular deterrence equilibrium.” The chaotic groups retreated, not only due to security measures but also out of fear of confronting an organized and widespread public that rejects violations of public safety. Investigations later revealed that some participants in acts of vandalism were motivated financially through external funding, while others acted out of personal impulse and thrill-seeking, without understanding the strategic dimensions of what was happening.

At its core, Iran today faces a multi-faceted hybrid war, including external military threats, internal sabotage, psychological and media warfare, cyberattacks and targeting of digital infrastructure. Tehran recognized that the convergence of these threats at a single point posed an extremely serious danger and adopted a strategy focused on dismantling the war piece by piece rather than confronting it as a single bundle—addressing each front with dedicated mechanisms under a new defensive doctrine emphasizing maximum readiness and comprehensive deterrence.

Facing the militarization of the interior, intelligence agencies conducted precise operations that uncovered sleeper cells and dismantled networks, restoring control to the streets and blocking any internal coordination for external strikes. In psychological warfare, Tehran countered disinformation campaigns with documented facts and actively engaged in diplomatic efforts with foreign missions, presenting evidence of external operational rooms that fueled incitement and deception.

Simultaneously, Iran addressed cyber warfare with strict technical measures, including temporary internet shutdowns at peak threat levels to protect critical systems and sever communication channels between external operators and riot organizers, paralyzing hostile operational hubs. This internal fortification was accompanied by heightened readiness for external deterrence, with Iran’s discourse no longer purely defensive, but including direct threats to US interests and warning messages to “Israeli” targets, coupled with the option of preemptive strikes to prevent existential attacks before they occur.

With the collapse of illusions relying on Iran’s internal erosion, the Islamic Republic emerged from this complex confrontation with stronger security and social cohesion, having successfully dismantled elements of the hybrid war through a combination of decisive intelligence, public awareness, and comprehensive deterrence readiness, which is considered the most important safeguard against the region slipping into an open confrontation whose flames would harm everyone.