“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,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Friday in a video statement after Israel struck over 200 military and nuclear sites in Iran.The unannounced strikes were clearly meant to disrupt Tehran’s nuclear work and increase the time it would take for Iran to produce a nuclear weapon.However, the number of sites hit, the specific nature of the targets, and remarks from Israeli leaders suggest there may be a wider aim: weakening or even removing Iran’s ruling regime.“As we achieve our objective, we are also clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom,” Netanyahu said, referring to Israeli strikes that hit targets across Iran, including nuclear sites, killing several top military commanders and nuclear scientists.The attacks early Friday went beyond nuclear plants and missile sites. They also targeted senior members of Iran’s military and nuclear experts — moves that, according to a Reuters report, seem designed to damage Iran’s image internally and among its partners in the region. These are actions that could affect the stability of Iran’s leadership.There is already significant dissatisfaction among many people in Iran due to economic struggles, lack of free expression, and ongoing issues related to women’s and minority rights.In this situation, Netanyahu may be hoping that the extensive airstrikes will lead to unrest within the country that could eventually bring down the Islamic Republic.Some officials in Israel and the United States see the nuclear programme as the main security concern. From that view, Iran should be offered incentives: if it stops pursuing nuclear weapons and ends its support for armed groups, it could have sanctions removed and be reintegrated into the global system.Others believe the real issue is the continued existence of the Islamic Republic. They argue that Iran’s leadership is unlikely to change its regional behaviour and is working not to deter Israel, but to destroy it. From this perspective, diplomatic talks only help Iran buy time. A nuclear programme seen as illegal gives cover to maintain sanctions, which they hope will eventually weaken a regime they consider beyond repair.There is no common ground between these two positions. And now, more clearly than before, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be in the second group. The recent strikes were not mainly focused on nuclear equipment but on top military commanders of the Islamic Republic. The goal, it seems, is not just to set back Iran’s nuclear efforts — but to challenge the regime’s hold on power, Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, wrote in an article in Foreign Policy.
Trying to shake the regime
Israel might believe that the recent attacks and killings could destabilize the Iranian government and create an opportunity for a public uprising. This is what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is hoping for. But this approach is risky. Even with the damage caused by Israel’s recent attack, there is long-standing hostility toward Israel — not just from Iran’s leadership but also from much of its mostly Shi’ite population. That makes it uncertain whether public anger alone could bring down a well-established religious government that has the support of strong security forces. There is no sign that such a series of events will even begin. And even if it does, there’s no clarity on what direction it would take, a BBC report said. Power in Iran lies mostly with those who control the military and the economy. Much of this power rests with hardliners in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and other unelected groups. These groups don’t need to carry out a coup — they already have authority. And they could choose to make Iran more confrontational in response to attacks. Another possible result could be the collapse of the current government, followed by instability in Iran. With a population of nearly 90 million, any unrest in Iran would affect many countries in the Middle East. If Israel is able to remove the Islamic leadership in Tehran, the attack would be seen as successful. But if the leadership stays in place — and history suggests that airstrikes alone rarely bring regime change — then Iran could still keep some part of its nuclear program, Jeffrey Lewis writes. Israel’s national security advisor has already said that Iran might still keep parts of its nuclear capability. So what happens then? One possibility Israel sees is that Iran could agree to a deal with US President Donald Trump to give up its nuclear plans. But another possibility is that Iran could follow North Korea’s path — leaving the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and eventually developing nuclear weapons. In that case, it is unlikely that Russia or China would support new sanctions. They may not even enforce the ones already in place. Russia has been buying Iranian drones, and China imports Iranian oil. The reasons why Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stopped the country’s nuclear weapons program in 2003 — and why he kept that policy — are not fully known. There have been different views within Iran: some have wanted a nuclear weapon, while others have not. Until now, those opposing the bomb have been able to influence policy. But after this recent strike, these discussions will likely change. There will also be new individuals involved in these decisions. People will think about those who are no longer there and ask whether Israel would have acted this way if Iran already had nuclear weapons — or if Israel didn’t have them. If the Iranian government doesn’t fall, Israel might feel the need to carry out more attacks in the future. Even if this strike has seriously disrupted Iran’s nuclear efforts, Iran could restart the program.“In the ideal world, Israel would prefer to see a change of regime, no question about that,” Sima Shine, a former chief Mossad analyst and now a researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, was quoted as saying by the news agency Reuters. If Israel succeeds in removing Iran’s leadership, there is no guarantee the successor that emerges would not be even more hardline in pursuit of conflict with Israel.“For years, many in Israel have insisted that regime change in Iran would prompt a new and better day – that nothing could be worse than the current theocratic regime,” Jonathan Panikoff, a former US deputy national intelligence officer for the Middle East was quoted as saying by Reuters. “But history tells us it can always be worse.”
