By : Nedal Zubeidi
Jordan Daily – The escalating Israel-Iran conflict, sparked by Israel’s “Operation Rising Lion” has reignited speculation about regime change in Tehran.
Israel’s strikes, which killed over 70 people, including IRGC commander Hossein Salami, top military leaders and nuclear scientists, targeted Iran’s nuclear and military sites. Iran’s retaliatory missile attacks on Israeli bases, coupled with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s vow of a “harsh response” and “heavy blows,” signal a volatile standoff.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s call for Iran to accept a nuclear deal or face further strikes with “great American equipment” adds pressure, but is regime change the goal? While the attacks weaken Iran’s leadership, pursuing regime change- intentionally or not- is a high-risk strategy that Israel and the U.S. appear to avoid, though their actions risk destabilizing Iran unintentionally.
The strikes on Natanz and Tehran’s military infrastructure sought to cripple Iran’s nuclear program and its allies like Hezbollah and the Houthis, perceived as existential threats. Killing key figures disrupts Iran’s capabilities, but there’s no evidence of a broader plan to topple the regime. Such a move would require sustained operations, risking a prolonged conflict Israel, now under a state of emergency, cannot afford. Iran’s missile barrages and the downing Israeli jets near Salmas show its resolve, making regime change a costly gamble.
The U.S., while supportive of Israel, prioritizes coercion over regime change. Trump’s push for a nuclear deal- “Iran has a chance now to make a deal, and they better take it”- suggests diplomacy, not overthrow, is the goal. Historical U.S. missteps, like Iraq in 2003, highlight the chaos of regime change, from regional instability to economic fallout. Iran’s threat to target U.S. bases if Washington intervenes-“any support for the Zionist regime will face consequences”-underscores the risk of escalation.
Trump’s focus on economic stability and avoiding Middle Eastern quagmires further dims the prospect of a deliberate regime change campaign.
Yet, the risk of unintended destabilization looms. The loss of IRGC leaders and damage to infrastructure could fuel internal dissent in Iran, especially if economic woes mount. Khamenei’s rejection of a U.S. nuclear proposal, emphasizing “energy independence,” aims to rally domestic support, but prolonged conflict might strain the regime. This destabilization could align with Israel’s goal of weakening Iran but risks chaos, potentially empowering hardliners or fracturing the country. The Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil flows could become a flashpoint, harming U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia.
Pursuing regime change, deliberately or inadvertently, is a strategic folly. Iran’s resilient security apparatus and loyalist base make overthrow unlikely without massive intervention. The regional fallout- ethnic conflicts, extremist groups, or disrupted oil flows- would outweigh any benefits. Instead, the U.S.should double down on diplomacy. A nuclear deal limiting Iran’s program for sanctions relief offers a path to de-escalation.
As the conflict rages, the U.S. must avoid the temptation of regime change. Khamenei’s warning of “heavy blows” is a stark reminder: pushing Iran to the brink could ignite a regional fire. Containment and negotiation, not destabilization, are the wiser course.
