Regime Change In Iran May Be Wishful Thinking — And Be Careful What You Wish For

-Analysis-

PARIS — How far will the escalation between Israel and Iran go? Now in its fourth day, the two countries, enemies for decades, have reached an unprecedented level of confrontation: the shadow war has become an open war.

The Jewish state had never before carried out such an extensive attack against Iran’s nuclear program and military and industrial targets. Iran, for its part, had never managed to strike with its missiles in the heart of Israel, causing numerous civilian casualties.

What happens next is a game of multiple unknowns, and depends on the real intentions of Iran and Israel, of course, but also of U.S. President Donald Trump, who is talking more than acting so far in a war that goes against his longstanding rhetoric to avoid U.S. involvement in Middle East conflicts.

The main unknown is Israel’s ultimate objective: will it be satisfied, so to speak, with simply destroying Iran’s nuclear program? Or will it continue to attack until the Tehran regime collapses, to reach a “regime change” with neo-conservative overtones. This would change the nature of the confrontation.

Not be air alone

There is no doubt that Benjamin Netanyahu wants the Islamic regime to fall. Whether he has the means to do so is another issue. You can hardly bring down a regime by air alone, but you can provoke such chaos that a state eventually collapses.

No externally-induced regime change has produced positive results for more than 30 years: not in Afghanistan in 2001, nor Iraq in 2003, nor Libya in 2011… In Syria this past December, it was Syrian fighters who brought down Bashar al-Assad’s regime, even if they were helped by foreign forces.

However much one may detest the oppressive Tehran regime, believing that its collapse under heavy-handed Israeli pressure would lead to greater progress and freedom for the Iranians is an illusion: that’s mistaking wishful thinking for reality.

Chaos and goals

The collapse of the regime is likely to generate more chaos, from which further oppressors could emerge.

Israel is tempted to do so, firstly because Iran has been proclaiming for decades that it wants to wipe out the Jewish state; but also because the most messianic members of the Israeli leadership have an apocalyptic vision of history, in the biblical sense of the term: they believe that chaos will enable them to achieve their territorial and human objectives. The events of the last few months, in reaction to the Hamas massacre of October 7, are in line with this view.

Trump is more a victim of what’s happened in recent days than an initiator.

Donald Trump, for his part, seems to have been more a victim of what’s happened in recent days than an initiator. He said he was not in favor of military action, but he let it happen and even offered his approval to Netanyahu — who is now pushing him to get more involved.

Today, the U.S. president declares to want a truce between Israel and Iran, but only at the price of Iran agreeing to suspend uranium enrichment.

That leaves the power in the Iranian camp: it says it’s ready to stop the war if Israel does the same, but that’s unlikely as long as the nuclear program isn’t destroyed with certainty.

From a position of weakness, Iran has so far been careful not to involve the United States or the Gulf states in its retaliation, as its strategy is one of regime survival. But is it ready to give in to the American demand to put an end to the war?

This major crisis therefore carries with it a serious potential for escalation, overshadowing efforts to end the tragedy in Gaza, and once again undermining international law. As we see with every crisis, force has become the only parameter in this new world, and not just in the Middle East.