US, Israel Strike Iran: Regime Change or Chaos?

US and Israel Launch Major Strikes on Iran Amidst Nuclear Talks Stalemate

Joint military operations by the United States and Israel against Iran have commenced mere hours after nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington concluded without a significant breakthrough in Geneva. The strikes, described by former President Donald Trump as a “major combat operation,” are purportedly aimed at destabilizing the Iranian regime and fostering an environment for internal opposition to enact regime change.

Iranian Response and Public Reaction

Within hours of the initial strikes, pro-government demonstrators took to the streets of Tehran, pledging retaliation and asserting that the attacks represented a grave error by the US and Israel. “Israel will certainly collapse, and the Iranian nation will undoubtedly prevail,” declared one demonstrator. “This is a struggle between truth and falsehood, and truth always prevails.” The sentiment expressed was one of defiance, with a clear rejection of any reliance on the Iranian populace for support by the US.

However, the strategy appears to hinge on the hope that the Iranian people will seize this moment. Israeli Prime Minister, in a televised address, directly appealed to the Iranian populace, urging them to “look to the skies” as “Help has arrived.” He stated, “We will create conditions that will enable the brave Iranian people to throw off the yoke of this murderous regime. This is your opportunity to establish a new and free Iran. Take your destiny into your own hands.”

While unverified images circulated on social media depicting celebrations within Iran following the strikes, experts caution against overestimating the likelihood of a popular uprising. Dr. Cena Azodi, Assistant Professor of Middle East Politics at the Elliot School of International Affairs, expressed skepticism, noting, “Relying on the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow the government. Well, I mean, good luck with that.” He highlighted the Iranian military and the IRGC’s readiness to employ “horrible lethal force” to suppress any dissent.

Resilience of the Iranian Regime

Experts also point to the inherent resilience of the Iranian government system, which has been designed to withstand attacks on its leadership. “Iran is such a complicated case though,” Dr. Azodi explained. “They have built up a government system that is designed to be resilient in the face of assassinations. It’s designed to be ‘coup-proof’. Even if you kill, for instance, their political leaders, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards might take over the government; we might end up with a more hostile government at the end of these attacks.”

Mazad Burjardi, an Iran expert and Vice Provost at Missouri University, echoed these concerns. While acknowledging the demise of the Supreme Leader as a potentially welcome development for those seeking regime downfall, he cautioned against premature euphoria regarding regime change. He noted the scarcity of successful regime changes brought about solely by aerial bombardments, citing Libya as a case where an active ground opposition force was crucial, a scenario not clearly present in Iran.

Burjardi also raised the issue of a lack of a unified opposition or a clear “government in waiting” in Iran, questioning to whom defectors would turn. He emphasized the sheer scale of Iran, a country with 90 million people, making the “day after” scenario uncertain.

Succession and Potential Power Shifts

The reported death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has raised questions about succession. Dr. Azodi explained the constitutional process, involving the Assembly of Experts convening to appoint a successor. In the interim, a council of high-ranking clergy or the Supreme National Security Council could assume control.

Despite the potential blow to the Islamic Republic, Dr. Azodi does not anticipate an immediate regime collapse due to the system’s resilience. However, he acknowledged that the loss of a leader who held the position for 37 years would necessitate a significant period of acclimatization for any successor. “I don’t expect a regime change although it can happen but I still think that this is a major blow to the Islamic Republic,” he stated.

Regarding the public’s reaction, Dr. Azodi suggested that many Iranians would be relieved, describing the Supreme Leader as a “ruthless dictator” disliked by the majority. “From my perspective, Iranians are quite happy and the things that I’m hearing from Iran, people are actually cheering after his death,” he remarked.

Mazad Burjardi elaborated on the succession process, mentioning the Assembly of Religious Experts, a body of approximately 80 individuals responsible for choosing the next leader. He raised concerns about the logistical challenges of such a meeting in the current climate and speculated that the Revolutionary Guards might invoke an emergency situation to assume interim control.

Diverging Interests and Strategic Gamble

The military operation represents a significant gamble, with potential divergences in objectives between the United States and Israel. While former President Trump appears focused on rapid regime change, some Israeli analysts suggest that chaos in Iran might be a more preferred outcome for Israel, drawing parallels to situations in southern Lebanon and Syria.

Dr. Hussein Bernay, Associate Professor of International Studies at Indiana University, noted that the US has stated the campaign would be multi-day. He indicated that the duration would depend on the success of leadership decapitation strikes. If Iranian defenses hold and a robust counter-response is mounted, the conflict could be prolonged.

The consequences of either scenario, short-term or prolonged, point towards instability. Dr. Bernay warned of a prolonged period of instability, the potential for pockets of resistance, and an unclear post-war plan from both Washington and Tel Aviv. “At best, we’re looking at a very unstable transition, and at worst, a kind of a widening war to other countries and perhaps even threat of civil conflict inside Iran,” he stated.

Incoherence in US Policy

The reasoning behind the strikes, especially following claims of Iran’s nuclear capabilities being destroyed in a previous conflict, appears contradictory. Dr. Bernay highlighted this incoherence, stating, “Clearly that wasn’t factually correct. If they’re going to go back to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program and they had said that it was obliterated in June, clearly the objectives of the June war were not as stated by the president back then.”

He further questioned the timing of these campaigns amidst ongoing negotiations, suggesting a fundamental lack of coherence in Washington’s policy toward Iran, torn between regime change and containment. “This central contradiction has never been addressed by this administration and it’s never really clearly stated what it wants for Iran as well as from Iran,” he observed.

The situation also raises questions about the reliability of the United States as a negotiating partner. Dr. Bernay concluded that the unfolding events do not reflect well on Washington’s policy process, which appears unstable and lacking long-term planning. He characterized the approach as “shooting first and aiming later,” a pattern he has observed with the current administration’s Iran policy over the past decade.

Looking Ahead

The coming days and weeks will be crucial in determining the trajectory of this escalating conflict. The effectiveness of the strikes, the response from Iran, and the potential for internal shifts within the country will all be closely monitored. The divergence of interests between the US and Israel, coupled with the inherent complexities of the Iranian political landscape, suggests a period of heightened uncertainty and potential instability in the Middle East.

Source: Washington's strategy – wreaking havoc or trying to bring about regime change | DW News (YouTube)