Can Israel’s Airstrikes Really Topple Iran’s Regime? Experts Say It’s Unlikely
Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, targeting not only Iran’s nuclear facilities in Natanz and Isfahan, but also IRGC leadership, the Tehran police headquarters, and state media infrastructure—signaling a strategy that surpasses traditional nuclear disruption efforts.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to Iran’s leadership as a “modern Hitler” and suggested these strikes aim to “free the Persians,” intensifying fears that Israel may be working toward weakening or even overthrowing the clerical regime.
Iran's political system is deeply institutionalized; removing leaders rarely produces immediate regime collapse without a broader shift .
Experts cite failed foreign interventions in Iraq and Libya, arguing that bombing rarely leads to constructive regime transformation—and often triggers nationalistic backlash.
External aggression can consolidate domestic support and empower hardliners, making internal reform harder.
Iranian exiles, especially in Germany, are divided—some hopeful the strikes might help collapse the regime, others fearful of intensified repression or civil war. Analysts caution that regime longevity depends more on internal dissent and diplomacy than foreign bombing.
Commentators stress that military pressure isn’t a substitute for political reform. U.S. experts like David Ignatius argue that sustained diplomacy, economic assistance, and human-rights support are more likely to yield long-term change. Without U.S. and regional follow-up, military strikes risk achieving tactical gains, but not strategic transformation.
While Israel’s strikes are the most significant direct attack on Iran in decades, experts overwhelmingly agree that airstrikes alone won't collapse the Iranian regime. Without internal dissent, structural shifts, and diplomatic engagement—military pressure alone risks entrenching the very system it seeks to weaken.
