The question of whether Israel’s objective in its escalating conflict with Iran extends beyond targeting Tehran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure to pursuing regime change has become a central topic of debate among analysts and observers.
While Israeli leaders have not explicitly declared regime change as their goal, rhetoric from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior officials — combined with the scale and intensity of recent operations — suggests that the toppling of the Islamic republic may be an implicit or aspirational aim.
Critics warn that such a strategy carries enormous risks: regional escalation, unintended political consequences, and the potential empowerment of even more hardline elements within Iran’s leadership. They argue that attempting to forcibly reengineer Iran’s political order is a high-stakes gamble with no guaranteed payoff.
Supporters of a more aggressive stance, however, contend that the Islamic republic is weaker than ever. They point to persistent public dissent and growing international isolation, insisting that these conditions represent a rare opportunity to facilitate the collapse of the regime. In their view, sustained external pressure could be the decisive factor in bringing about long-desired change.
Protests, Pressure, And Possibilities
Whether military intervention alone can achieve regime change in Iran remains highly contested — both in policy circles and among Iranians themselves. In recent years, the country has experienced repeated waves of nationwide protest, most notably the 2022 uprising following the death of Mahsa Amini in police custody.
That movement, which coalesced around the slogan “Women, Life, Freedom,” spread rapidly across dozens of provinces and drew support from diverse segments of society. It was met with a severe crackdown: over 550 protesters were reportedly killed and more than 20,000 arrested, according to human rights groups.
The protests exposed deep public dissatisfaction and revealed the vulnerability of the regime. But they also underscored the resilience — and willingness to use unrestrained force — of Iran’s security apparatus, highlighting the challenges facing any effort to dislodge the Islamic republic from within.
Some analysts argue that external military pressure could create space for the Iranian opposition. But even among proponents of regime change, there is broad recognition that air strikes alone are insufficient.
“We talk a lot about regime change, but we haven’t really invested in a campaign to expand communications, to create a strike fund, to do all these different things that would allow the Iranian opposition the room to breathe, the room to organize and mobilize against the regime,” said Ilan Berman, senior vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council and a board member of RFE/RL.
Speaking to RFE/RL’s Radio Farda, he called this groundwork “a necessary prerequisite for Iranians to really feel confident enough to rise up in a sustained fashion.”
Without such efforts, critics caution, military intervention risks backfiring—strengthening hardliners and alienating ordinary Iranians.
Divided Views On Intervention
For many Iranians, the distinction between the Islamic republic and the nation itself is essential.
“This is not a war between Israel and Iran but between Israel and the Islamic republic. Iranians have been seeking regime change for years, and in the end, between Iran and the Islamic republic, only one will remain,” said Hamed Sheibani-Rad, a senior member of the foreign-based, pro-monarchy Iran Novin Party.
“People know very well that this opportunity afforded to them by Israel may not present itself again,” he added, reflecting a view held by some that external pressure could accelerate long-awaited change.
Others, however, warn that foreign intervention — particularly when it results in civilian casualties or strikes infrastructure vital to daily life — can undermine the legitimacy of domestic dissent.
“Criticism of the Islamic republic is a domestic issue. The people of Iran are aware and don’t need a guardian abroad, especially not someone like Netanyahu,” said US-based defense analyst Hossein Arian in an interview with Radio Farda.
He argued that the Israeli strikes ultimately target assets that “belong to the Iranian people,” describing the Islamic republic as “nothing but a tenant.”
While the Islamic republic’s legitimacy appears increasingly fragile — evidenced by low election turnout and sustained unrest — most observers agree that durable change will ultimately have to come from within. Foreign military action may influence the pace or nature of that change, but whether it can initiate it remains a deeply unsettled question.
