Tehran: While Israel’s unprecedented air assault on Iran last Friday was framed as a direct attempt to derail Tehran’s nuclear program, the scale, targets, and political rhetoric surrounding the operation point toward a far more ambitious endgame regime change in Iran.
The attacks, which hit not only nuclear enrichment sites and missile production facilities but also high-ranking figures in Iran’s military and scientific communities, suggest a calculated effort to undermine the very pillars of the Islamic Republic’s governance. Analysts argue the strikes were not merely tactical but aimed at eroding Iran’s internal stability and weakening its regional influence.
“There’s little doubt Israel hopes these attacks will eventually stir unrest from within,” said Michael Singh, former U.S. National Security Council official. “They’re aiming to shake the regime by targeting its strategic core — without triggering mass civilian casualties.”
In a rare direct message to the Iranian population, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged them to seize the moment. Drawing parallels to past Israeli actions that led to political shifts in Lebanon and Syria, he told Iranians: “Your day of freedom is near. When that day comes, the ancient bond between our peoples will be restored.”
However, the prospects of fostering a popular uprising against Iran’s entrenched theocracy remain uncertain. Decades of hostility toward Israel, deeply rooted among Iran’s leadership and much of its populace, cast doubt on whether outside pressure could galvanize effective internal resistance.
Experts say that while Friday’s strikes dealt a heavy blow, they are unlikely to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities entirely. The bombed sites — including the above-ground enrichment facility at Natanz — are only part of a broader, deeply embedded program scattered across fortified locations.
Even Israeli officials acknowledge the limitations of military force in achieving full nuclear disarmament. “You can’t entirely destroy a nuclear program with bombs,” said Israel’s National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi. “But we can reshape the strategic context to pave the way for new diplomatic outcomes.”
The broader context suggests that Israel's vision extends beyond delaying uranium enrichment. By striking military leaders with decades of experience — figures seen as linchpins of regime stability — Israel may be hoping to fracture Iran’s security establishment and sow internal discord.
“These were not just scientists — they were system architects,” said Sima Shine, former head of research at Mossad. “Losing them weakens the backbone of the regime’s security apparatus.”
Still, regime change is a high-risk strategy. Jonathan Panikoff of the Atlantic Council warns that even if Israel were to succeed in toppling Iran’s leadership, what follows may not be more moderate. “Many in Israel assume no outcome could be worse than the current regime,” he said. “But history warns us that instability can breed something even more extreme.”
Despite Washington’s logistical support in intercepting retaliatory Iranian missiles, the U.S. has not openly endorsed any regime change agenda. President Trump’s administration has maintained a distance from such ambitions, even as Iran accuses Washington of complicity in Israeli aggression.
Talks aimed at resurrecting a nuclear agreement are scheduled in Oman, though Iran has cast doubt on their viability, citing what it sees as U.S. hypocrisy — speaking of diplomacy while enabling Israeli attacks.
Israel’s strategy, it seems, is to push Iran to a tipping point — militarily, politically, and socially. Whether this pressure will force policy change, spark internal collapse, or trigger greater conflict remains the open and dangerous question.