Israel Urges Regime Change in Iran While U.S. Hesitates

The conflict in Iran has intensified, with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu advocating for regime change while the United States remains uncertain about its objectives. Following initial military successes in the ongoing war, Netanyahu asserted that the campaign aims to establish conditions for a new government in Iran. He dismissed American concerns about a prolonged conflict, stating, “You’re not going to have an endless war because … this terror regime in Iran is at its weakest point.”

Despite a broad consensus in Israel regarding the necessity for regime change, including support from Netanyahu’s political opponents, the U.S. administration is sending mixed signals. President Donald Trump has fluctuated in his public statements, sometimes endorsing regime change and at other times refraining from mentioning it. Key officials, including War Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have focused on neutralizing Iranian military threats rather than explicitly stating regime change as a goal.

Israeli military operations are not limited to targeting senior government officials and military installations. Strikes are also directed at agencies responsible for domestic security and suppression of dissent, such as the Revolutionary Guard and police compounds. This strategy is intended to encourage public demonstrations against the Iranian government.

From Israel’s perspective, mass civilian casualties resulting from Iranian missile strikes could significantly shift public sentiment against the war. However, military assessments suggest that as Israeli forces continue to target launchers and missile sites, Iran’s capacity to inflict damage on Israel will decrease over time.

Trump’s calculations may differ significantly, especially with the midterm elections approaching. He faces several potential pressures: rising U.S. casualties, increasing domestic opposition to the war, rising economic costs, and growing calls for action from U.S. allies in the Gulf. The prospect of a “Venezuela scenario,” where a successor to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accepts a modified nuclear deal that includes oil concessions, may tempt Trump to reconsider his approach. For Israel, such an agreement would be seen as a significant missed opportunity.

While some Iranians took to the streets to celebrate Khamenei’s death, larger protests akin to those that occurred in January have yet to materialize. Furthermore, there are no indications of defections from Iran’s armed forces, suggesting a resilient regime. Both Hamas and Hizbullah have endured severe military setbacks, indicating that Iran’s government might also withstand these challenges.

As the situation evolves, Washington may find itself compelled to devise an exit strategy that may not align with Israeli interests, reflecting the complex dynamics at play in this conflict. The unfolding events will continue to shape U.S.-Israeli relations and the broader geopolitical landscape in the region.