Tensions between the United States and Iran have returned to the forefront of international concern, with high-profile diplomatic contacts and cultural expressions reflecting the intensity of the rivalry. Lately, a term circulating widely on Iranian opposition media, ‘katlat’—colloquially meaning ‘cutlets’ and associated with the fate of targeted regime officials—drives home the deep psychological and political impact of targeted operations, most notably the 2020 U.S. strike that eliminated Qassem Soleimani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force.
The use of ‘katlat’ as shorthand for regime losses underscores the vulnerabilities within the Iranian leadership. Soleimani’s assassination, ordered by President Donald Trump in response to Iranian provocations and attacks on Western interests, marked an inflection point for Iran’s regional posture. The strike was not only a demonstration of American operational reach but also a message to Tehran about the risks of pursuing confrontation with the West.
Since then, Iran’s costly commitment to proxy militias—including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and other groups in Syria and Iraq—has amplified regional instability and drawn harsh responses from Israel and its allies. The October 7, 2023 massacre perpetrated by Hamas with Iranian support stands as the deadliest antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust and reignited a broader war across the region. In response, Israel’s military operations, backed by the United States and other partners, have systematically targeted Iranian-linked infrastructure, commanders, and operational planners, embodying Israel’s doctrine of preemptive and defensive action.
Meanwhile, diplomatic channels have been busy. Amidst crippling economic challenges, widespread domestic unrest, and international isolation, Iran’s leaders, led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, have engaged in complex negotiations with the United States. At issue are Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the easing of sanctions, and repeated calls for the release of hostages. Despite public statements of defiance, there are credible reports of Iranian willingness to contemplate significant compromises, illustrating both the mounting internal pressures on Tehran and the effectiveness of Western pressure.
These negotiations are inseparable from the broader context of ongoing military and intelligence operations. Israeli and U.S. officials argue that the deterring effect of targeted operations against key figures has forced Iranian proxies to reconsider escalation, and, for the first time in years, pushed elements of the regime onto the defensive. Within Iran, the language of ‘katlat’ has taken on broader meaning: opposition activists use it as both a symbol of resistance against the regime and a grim reminder of the risks inherent in supporting or working for the Islamic Republic’s security apparatus.
The shadow war continues outside Iran’s borders. The so-called ‘Axis of Resistance,’ a network of Iranian-controlled militias, regularly threatens Israel’s borders and international shipping. The uprooting and neutralization of these threats remain a core priority for Israel’s government and military, with full support from its U.S. ally. Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz, have reiterated their commitment to protect Israeli civilians, secure the return of kidnapped hostages, and prevent Iran from achieving regional hegemony through terror.
Despite public saber-rattling, the Iranian regime faces mounting dissent at home. Young Iranians, particularly those active on encrypted social media, have appropriated regime terminology and twisted it into vehicles for ridicule and protest. The popularization of ‘katlat’ exemplifies a deeper narrative war being waged among Iranians, who view the costs of regional adventurism as a losing proposition for the regime—and a rallying cry for the opposition.
Amid these sweeping changes, the legacy of the Abraham Accords continues to shape regional dynamics, bolstering Israel’s alliances with Arab states and intensifying Tehran’s sense of encirclement. Iranian-backed forces remain active in multiple theaters, but growing cooperation across the region, spurred by shared concerns over terror and Iranian ambitions, has marginalized the regime’s prospects for influence.
The unfolding negotiations are likely to influence not only the future of the Iranian nuclear program and sanctions but also the daily security realities faced by millions throughout the Middle East. Any diplomatic denouement will hinge on the clarity of moral distinction: between a sovereign democracy defending its people and a regime that has repeatedly relied on terror proxies and illicit violence.
Looking forward, Israeli and American officials are determined to secure the release of hostages still held by Iranian-backed groups, roll back militant infrastructure, and reinforce the diplomatic and defensive architecture binding the pragmatic states of the region. The lasting lesson of operations like the strike against Soleimani, and the enduring symbolism of ‘katlat,’ is that those who orchestrate violence against innocents are not beyond the reach of accountability.
The evolving use of language and the persistence of high-level diplomatic engagement signal that the conflict between Iran and the United States, with Israel as a core stakeholder, is entering a decisive phase. As opposition channels continue to circulate biting metaphors for regime vulnerability, the prospect of real change—driven by both external pressure and internal dissent—remains on the horizon.
