On June 13, Israel attacked Iran’s military and nuclear facilities, and on June 22, America bombed its key nuke sites. Then, on June 23, Israel began an assault against Iran’s regime by blowing the gate off its notorious Evin prison where Tehran jailed and tortured dissidents. Tel Aviv distributed the dramatic prison video globally to underscore that regime change, as well as victory, was its ultimate goal. Attacks have assassinated military and political leaders, then demolished the headquarters of government institutions such as the state broadcasting center, the military, the Revolutionary Guards, and the Basij paramilitary that has brutalized protesters. Regime change is not the official goal of the United States, but changes are already underway that may result in revolution or even partition. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is committed to an overthrow. The Iranian government was “very weak”, he said, and that given the opportunity, “80% of the people would throw these theological thugs out”.
Bombs alone cannot bring about regime change; only Iranians can, but they are in disarray due to years of repressive measures by their theocracy as well as the war. The Ayatollah “disappeared” for a week, leading some to speculate he was hiding, in exile, or had been killed. During his absence, politicians and military commanders formed alliances and vied for power; he then returned on June 26. But each faction has a different vision of how Iran should move forward with its war, the nuclear program, its negotiations with the United States, and the standoff with Israel. However, the US-Israeli attacks have weakened the Ayatollah and begun a process that will eventually restructure the politics and the borders in Iran and throughout the Middle East. Iran’s regional proxies are being eliminated gradually, and some, like Hezbollah, have openly distanced themselves from Tehran.
In the West, there is a mixed opinion concerning regime change as a goal. French President Emmanuel Macron warned that change is dangerous “when you have no idea what comes next”. By contrast, Friedrich Merz, the German Chancellor, said: “We are dealing with a terrorist regime both internally and externally. It would be good if this regime came to an end.” Trump recently said he opposed regime change to please his political base, which is isolationist and opposes “forever wars” like Iraq. “I’d like to see everything calm down as quickly as possible. Regime change often leads to chaos, and ideally, we want to avoid such chaos. So we’ll see how it goes.”
Fortunately, Iran’s terrorist sidekick, Vladimir Putin, has not entered the war and only verbally condemned the US and Israel. "This is an absolutely unprovoked aggression against Iran," he declared. "For our part, we are making efforts to assist the Iranian people.” Then, Putin’s goon, Dmitry Medvedev, raised the stakes by tweeting that “a number of countries [namely North Korea] would supply nuclear warheads to Iran”. Trump fired back angrily at Medvedev, former President of Russia, for “casually throwing around the ‘N’ word (Nuclear!)”, writing “the ‘N word’ should not be treated so casually. I guess that’s why Putin’s ‘THE BOSS.’”
On June 23, Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar. However, it was a “performative” strike, intended for effect rather than destruction. It was aimed against the most peaceful Arab country in the region, which also happens to be Iran’s partner in the world’s largest natural gas field. Only 14 missiles were sent, and the Americans shot them all down because Iran tipped off Qatar about the strike ahead of time. The warning also allowed American and Qatari personnel to be evacuated, and US aircraft to be relocated. There was little damage, and the limp effort sent a message that Iran is weak and won’t or cannot escalate further.
Even so, it remains difficult to bring about a positive, grassroots regime change because Iranian opponents who would seek to install a democratic government are “only united in their disdain for the administration”, commented an expert. Other possibilities include a civil war or even partition: Only 50% of Iranians are Persian (25% are Turkic or Azeri), and the country is, like Russia, a ruthless empire that forcefully cobbled together many different ethnic regions, religions, and political beliefs over decades. If the government fell apart, Azerbaijan and Kurdish groups would carve out border enclaves. The Israelis have stoked these divisions, and there are reports that Kurdish and Baluchi separatist groups in Iran’s border areas prepare to escalate the situation internally.
Another impediment to rapid change is the absence of a political opposition due to decades of cruel dictatorship. The 2022 uprising by women was quashed, political parties were banned, and alternative leaders have been jailed, exiled, under house arrest, or working underground to bring about change in unions or as lawyers. But a consensus exists that Iran’s weird religious governing structure won’t remain. The Supreme Leader is 86 years old and will be toppled by a political movement or by the military, which understands that the country cannot win.
Some have even backed the reinstatement of Shah Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last monarch, who was deposed in 1979. He’s called the "poster boy of the democracy movement" in Iran and is the founder and leader of the National Council of Iran, an exiled Iranian opposition group. He proposes a free referendum in Iran to determine the nature of the future government and has been actively campaigning in the US for support. “We see a leader [the Ayatollah] who is hiding in a bunker like a rat whilst many high officials are taking flight from Iran,” he said in a recent interview. “I have stepped in to lead this campaign at the behest of my compatriots. I have a plan for Iran’s future and recovery.” But he’s an unlikely contender because he left Iran at 17, his father was a terrible leader, and he is too closely associated with the Israeli government.
However, new leadership could also emerge from among the political prisoners in Evin Jail, such as Mostafa Tajzadeh, who served as the political deputy for the Interior Ministry in the Tehran administration from 1997 to 2005. “I know that some segments of the people are happy with the [Israeli] attacks, because they see it as the only way to change the failed clerical government. But even assuming that the war leads to such an outcome, Iran will be left in ruins, where, most likely, statelessness and chaos will prevail – if the country is not torn apart… I believe that for a peaceful transition to democracy, we can insist on the formation of a Constituent Assembly to amend/change the constitution and force the government to establish it.”
However, that may be wishful thinking, unless millions suddenly protest in the streets. History shows that totalitarians never quit and must be violently ousted. But a likely prospect, The Economist noted, is Iran’s military, whose leaders have gained ascendancy over the religious clerics during this war for the first time since Iran’s 1979 revolution. This may remove the zealot but may not be desirable because they will likely seek to retain control, “and,” it concluded, “they are not moderate.”
NOTE TO READERS: Please consider supporting my writing by subscribing to my Substack. A paid subscription grants access to all of my articles year-round.
I found a lot of this fascinating, and a lot of it rings true. I've traveled the country widely and observed the cultural/religious/linguisitc enclaves you've mapped out. What I would like more clarity about is the 'not moderate' stance of the military. During the years I lived in Iran, some time ago now, many military leaders were educated in Europe and/or the US. Where are they going now, and what sorts of notions of governance do they adhere to?
So-o-o, Netanyahu says 80% of the citizens would throw out those "ideological thugs,"
Please, remember the ideological scholar THUG who murdered the rare and wonderful Itzhak Rabin. Wikipedia Verified:
"The assailant was Yigal Amir, an Israeli law student and ultranationalist who radically opposed Rabin's peace initiative, particularly the signing of the Oslo Accords."
Great reporting, Diane! As usual let's look at all sides of the story.