The IAC's 'Iranian Front' panel brought together three different lenses on the same crisis: U.S. power and deterrence from Rep. Rich McCormick, Israeli-Iranian strategic analysis from Beni Sabti, and opposition politics from Farzan Seyedi.
The value of a strategic panel often comes from disagreement, but it can also come from distinct speakers answering different parts of the same problem. That was the structure of "The Iranian Front: Strategic Debrief" at the Israeli-American Council's January 2026 National Summit. U.S. Rep. Rich McCormick, Iran expert Beni Sabti, and Iranian political activist Farzan Seyedi approached the Iranian crisis from different professional and personal vantage points, while moderator Marjan Keypour Greenblatt moved the discussion between military strategy, U.S. policy, public opinion, media narratives, and political transition.
Sabti provided much of the strategic and cultural analysis of Iranian decision-making. He argued that leaders of the Islamic Republic interpret concessions and negotiations differently from Western governments and that pressure is often read through the lens of strength and weakness. He connected that judgment to Iran's nuclear program, terrorism, and the history of hostage-taking. Sabti also argued that the Israel-Iran war had not permanently solved the underlying strategic problem and predicted that Tehran would continue rebuilding capabilities unless the political structure itself changed.
McCormick's contribution was more explicitly focused on American power. A military veteran and physician serving in Congress, he argued that the United States had often possessed the capability to confront threats but lacked the political will to use that power consistently. He defended close U.S.-Israel cooperation, called for maximum sanctions, and said cyber operations, military actions, intelligence activity, and support for anti-regime forces should remain available as policy tools. His rhetoric was intentionally hard-line and framed the confrontation as a long-term struggle between authoritarian movements and countries committed to political freedom.
Seyedi's emphasis was different. Rather than begin with aircraft, sanctions, or nuclear enrichment, he began with the Iranian street. He described the protest movement as the continuation of decades of resistance, argued that fear had been one of the regime's principal tools, and said the war had changed the perception that the Islamic Republic was untouchable. He also focused heavily on the difference between the Iranian state and Iranian national identity, describing strong pro-Western and pro-Israel sentiment among parts of the public and especially among younger Iranians.
The three perspectives converged on one central conclusion: none of the speakers believed the status quo was stable or desirable. But they reached that conclusion by different routes. McCormick focused on the external pressure needed to change Tehran's calculations. Sabti focused on the regime's strategic culture and its ability to regenerate military threats. Seyedi focused on internal legitimacy and the existence of an organized alternative around Reza Pahlavi and transition planning.
Greenblatt also forced the panel to confront the problem of uncertainty. The internet blackout meant that information from inside Iran was incomplete, casualty estimates were contested, and reports about U.S. and Israeli intentions were changing quickly. Sabti openly described some of his comments as personal analysis, and Seyedi likewise identified several claims as his own observations. That distinction is important when using the panel as a historical source: it captures what influential participants believed and argued at a specific moment, not a final adjudication of every factual claim discussed in the room.
Taken together, the discussion showed why Iran cannot be understood through a single policy category. Nuclear weapons, missiles, proxies, sanctions, military deterrence, protest movements, political legitimacy, historical identity, media narratives, and transition planning are interconnected. The IAC panel's significance was that it placed all of those questions on the same stage and allowed an American congressman, an Israeli-Iranian expert, and an Iranian opposition activist to explain how they believed the pieces fit together.