Regime Change in Iran is Israel’s Objective

Early Friday morning Israel carried out hundreds of strikes across Iran targeting everything from high ranking officials to nuclear facilities. The unprovoked attack was largely telegraphed as reports of Israel’s intentions of striking Iran have been appearing in the media for months. Even Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said in a recorded message broadcast on Friday that the decision to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities had been made in November and that the attacks was initially planned for April (he made no mention as to why it was scuttled). Israel justified its offensive on the grounds that Iran was just days away from developing a nuclear weapon and nuclear-armed Iran would pose an existential threat to Israel. However, given the size and scope of Israel’s military actions, the long-term efficacy military of action alone, and Netanyahu’s distrust of diplomacy with the Islamic Republic I suspect that Israel’s primary objective is much larger.

If the goal of Israel’s ongoing military actions on Iran is degrade its nuclear facilities and prevent the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon, a successful operation would likely only delay Iran from eventually obtaining one. Most experts agree that military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities do not significantly impede its ability to rebuild and start again. By most accounts, Israel’s current military strikes would only delay the nuclear program by a couple of months. Given the cost in both lives and resources, carrying out a massive operation like this is not something that Israel could easily reproduce every couple of months. This is likely why President Trump came back to the negotiating table with Iran in his second term after ripping up the previous US nuclear deal (JCPOA) with Iran in 2018.

Israel could be hoping that the financial and human cost of continued Israeli assaults on Iran could be enough to dissuade it from pursuing a nuclear weapon, but that comes with significant risks. Iranian officials could double down on its nuclear program believing that the only real deterrence against military aggression from either Israel or the US is a nuclear weapon. With its proxies in the region significantly weakened, the deeply unpopular regime of the Islamic Republic could make a last second dash toward obtaining the bomb. While the regime has maintained a nuclear program for decades, reporting suggests that the regime has not acted with urgency to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Given the limited efficacy of military strikes, Western states have favored a diplomatic solution toward the nuclear issue in Iran. The Iranian economy is deeply hobbled by international sanctions and the regime is isolated. The diplomatic solution would provide Iran significant incentives to drop any nuclear weapons programs in exchange for sanctions relief and greater integration into the global economy. However, Israeli PM Netanyahu has rejected diplomatic overtures in the past. He famously campaigned against the JCPOA in both the US and at the UN. Netanyahu’s distrust of both Iran and the United Nations runs deep. He has consistently accused Iran of cheating the agreements it has signed and claimed that in spite of any agreement it will sign, it will continue to pursue a nuclear weapon. Given Netanyahu’s consistent rejection of diplomatic options, it is unlikely he’ll be satisfied with a diplomatic solution or that these military strikes are part of strengthening Israel’s or the US’s position in future diplomatic talks.

As much as I disagree with Netanyahu, he’s a smart, surely he’s aware of previously mentioned realities concerning Iran. So he knows if these strikes are going to have a lasting impact they must do more than simply degrade Iran’s nuclear facilities. That leaves regime change as an extremely risky, yet the only remaining option. Two decades ago Netanyahu testified before congress urging the US to remove Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. During his testimony he also expressed his desire for regime-change in neighboring Iran as well. During remarks Friday, Netanyahu called for an uprising in Iran saying, "The time has come for the Iranian people to unite around its flag and its historic legacy, by standing up for your freedom from the evil and oppressive regime." Netanyahu is currently hedging his bets that Israel can facilitate the regime’s collapse through armed strikes decapitating Iranian leadership and degrading its military to a point where the Iranian people can oust the current regime. Its an incredibly risky gamble with tremendous pit-falls but a possibly major pay off if it succeeds.

Israel has couple of factors working in its favor and several more working against it. Perhaps foremost among them is the Iranian regime’s unpopularity both at home and regionally. Iran has few, if any, friends that will stick out their neck to save the regime if it is on the verge of collapse. Domestically it is likely that a majority, perhaps even a significant majority, of Iranians oppose the regime. Over the past forty years, the Islamic Republic’s leadership has isolated the country from much of the world and watched as its economy has generally stagnated. The economy has significantly struggled over the past decade and many young Iranians look abroad for their future hopes. The regime is mired in corruption and Iranians see its’ promotion of Islam as more about political power than religion. There is good reason for Israel to hope that disgruntled Iranians will rise up against the regime, after all the Green Revolution in 2009 and the hijab protests in 2022 highlighted the people’s willingness to stand up to the regime.

The major problem with this expectation is that no one knows how Iranian discontent with their regime will translate into action as this moment. One Iranian dissident, Sadegh Zibakalam, who had been imprisoned in 2018 wrote on Twitter/X, “I am truly amazed by the expectations of Netanyahu, Trump, or Prince Reza Pahlavi who want me to support Israel and stand up against the regime under these circumstances.” Given the country’s previous experience of foreign meddling, whether the Russians and British in the early 20th century or the US in 1953, Israel’s actions will likely detract from the legitimacy of any movement that rises against the regime in the near term. As Zibakalam intimates, who wants to risk being seen as an Israeli stooge given the current circumstances.

The Iranian regime may be deeply unpopular, but it is still has its supporters and many analysts underestimate their strength. The regime’s supporters are true believers and willing to sacrifice to support the regime. This gives the regime a reservoir of human capital from which to re-staff its ranks in any bloody war of attrition. Not to mention that the regime is armed to the teeth while the opposition must rely alone on people power to succeed. Israel’s attempts to foment a revolution could lead to a blood bath on the streets or in a worst case scenario for Israel, bolster the regime as Iranians rally around the flag to protect the country’s sovereignty. Either way the situation in Iran is highly unpredictable.

So what if the regime does fall? History is a messy guide to the future, but regime change in the region has rarely gone well. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya (NATO helped support rebels overthrowing Gaddafi) have all contributed to chaos. Neither the region or those individual countries are better off as a result of regime-change. Iran is a large and diverse country with many economic, social, and ethnic cleavages. The revolution in 1979 only became Islamic because Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters were able to successfully isolate one-time allies and pick them off until it had consolidated power in its hands. There is no telling what comes next if the regime falls, in a worst-case scenario a radical faction of the IRGC could secure its grip on power and without the moderating voices of the pragmatists could pursue an even more radical agenda than those who currently hold the levels of power in Iran. It could possibly plunge Iran into years of instability (which Israel could prefer) or lead to a friendlier regime in Tehran which continues to seek nuclear weapons after all the Shah’s Iran also sought a nuclear program.

Perhaps the biggest risk for Israel is its international standing. I suspect that many world leaders hope to see Israel succeed in toppling Iran’s regime, but Israel has consistent broken international norms since 7 OCT 2023. Israel’s actions in Gaza have already set it on a course for pariah status. Pummeling Gaza as a response to Hamas’ attacks is one thing; however launching an unprovoked war on a sovereign country is sure to earn Israel some ire if the war spirals outside their control. It is not beyond them realm of possibility that a continued war could hurt global oil production and negatively impact the global economy. Sympathy for Israel following 7 OCT 2023 has waned significantly in recent months. This war with Iran is unlikely to reverse that trend unless it yields significant positive dividends.