Iran on Wednesday announced that its missile strike on Israel, the most significant military action against the Jewish state, had concluded, unless further provocation occurred. Meanwhile, Israel vowed to take retaliatory measures against Tehran, heightening concerns about a potential broader conflict.
Driving the news
Why it matters
Can Israel kill its way to a regime change in Iran ?
In a video message on Monday, Israeli PM Netanyahu declared that a change in Iran's government was imminent. He asserted that the time when "Iran is finally free" would arrive much earlier than anticipated.
Netanyahu criticized the "fanatic theocrats" who currently govern Iran. He expressed his belief that once the Iranian regime is overthrown, the relationship between the two nations will undergo a significant transformation.
"Our two ancient peoples, the Jewish people and the Persian people, will finally be at peace. Our two countries, Israel and Iran, will be at peace," Netanyahu said, emphasizing the potential for a new era of harmony between the two nations, once the current Iranian leadership is no longer in power.
But can Israel bring about a regime change in Iran? Israel’s military approach of targeting key figures and infrastructure has had some success in its ongoing war with Hamas and Hezbollah. Hezbollah’s capabilities, particularly in southern Lebanon, have been significantly diminished. With Hezbollah on the backfoot, Israel might feel emboldened to strike deeper into Iran’s infrastructure or even its leadership, aiming to disrupt its political core.
However, Israel’s past experiences with Hamas and Hezbollah suggest that while leadership decapitation can cripple militant organizations, it rarely brings about the collapse of the wider structures that sustain them.
While Israel's intelligence and technological capabilities are superior, Iran has the resources and institutional depth to withstand leadership losses.
Moreover, the risks of a full-scale war with Iran remain a significant deterrent, especially without assured US military support. Norman Roule, former US intelligence officer on Iran, told the Wall Street Journal: “Israel will seek to reinforce the idea that its technological superiority and military skill allow it to strike any target in Iran.” But “a war with Iran would require the political, economic, and military support, if not participation by the United States,” Roule added.
A major Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities or economic infrastructure could provoke a larger conflict, and potentially accelerate Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “Such an airstrike could provoke Tehran to launch a larger missile barrage, orchestrate terrorist attacks against Israeli interests abroad, and step up its nuclear program, hastening Iran’s path to a bomb,” warned Roule.
Ultimately, while Israel may successfully weaken Hezbollah and target Iranian leadership figures, the broader question of whether military force alone can bring about regime change in Iran is doubtful. History has shown that while decapitation strikes may weaken adversarial forces, they rarely lead to political upheaval. Iran’s deep institutional strength and the support it enjoys from regional proxies, popularly known as 'axis of resistance' make it unlikely that airstrikes alone could dismantle the regime.
What they're saying
Driving the news
- In a statement, Iranian defense minister Brigadier General Aziz Nasir Zadeh asserted that Iran launched attacks on Israeli "military, operational and intelligence" centers believed to be connected to the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.
- As per a ISW report quoting Iranian media, following airbases were targeted in Israel:
- The Nevatim Airbase, situated near Beersheba, Israel, is home to Israeli F-35s.
- The Hatzerim Airbase, located in the Negev Desert, was also targeted.
- Additionally, the Tel Nof Airbase, situated 20 kilometers south of Tel Aviv, was among the targets.
- Israel is deliberating its response to Iran's recent missile barrage. With the stakes higher than ever, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed that Tehran will face severe consequences, saying that Iran had “made a big mistake” and will “pay for it.”
- The US, meanwhile, is pushing for a measured Israeli response to avoid a broader regional war, but its influence may be limited in shaping Israel's next steps.
- This latest round of hostilities threatens to expand far beyond the Israel-Palestine struggle, pulling in regional powers like Iran, and sparking fears of a full-scale war across the Middle East.
- Iran’s move is seen as a calculated risk aimed at both showing solidarity with its allies Hezbollah and Hamas, while also testing the resolve of Israel and its US ally.
Why it matters
- The involvement of Iran in a direct missile attack on Israel dramatically raises the stakes. Israel has long been engaged in a shadow conflict with Iran, marked by cyberattacks, covert operations, and proxy battles. Now, the shadow war risks becoming an open confrontation.
- This escalation also comes at a time when the US is busy with one of the most polarised, closely contested presidential elections in its history.
- Meanwhile, the US is also attempting to navigate multiple geopolitical crises. As Washington grapples with its response to Russia’s war in Ukraine and the growing assertiveness of China, it now faces the prospect of being deeply drawn into another Middle Eastern conflict.
- The Biden administration is attempting to avoid a new war in the region, urging Israel to avoid a massive retaliation that could trigger a spiral of violence. Yet, the US has pledged unwavering support for Israel’s security, and how it balances these two positions will be critical in shaping the next phase of this conflict.
- While Iran’s missile barrage failed to inflict significant damage, it has nevertheless altered the trajectory of the conflict. Iran, emboldened by its strategic alliances with Hezbollah, Hamas, and other regional militias, is seeking to position itself as a key player in the resistance against Israel. Tehran's leadership has framed its missile strike as a justified retaliation for Israel’s recent assassination of senior Hezbollah figures, including its leader Hassan Nasrallah. Iranian officials have threatened further attacks if Israel retaliates, warning that such actions would invite “crushing attacks” on Israeli infrastructure.
- The US has responded to the situation by reaffirming its commitment to Israel’s security. While the Biden administration has been actively involved in supporting Israel's defense efforts—most notably through joint missile defense systems—it is also keen to prevent a regional war. Washington has been working behind the scenes to moderate Israel’s response, emphasizing that Iran’s missile strike, while a significant escalation, did not achieve its intended objectives.
- Yet, none of these efforts are likely to dissuade Israel from striking back. Netanyahu’s strong rhetoric indicates that a robust military response is all but certain. The question now is how far Israel will go in its retaliation. In the past, Israel has responded to Iranian provocations with targeted strikes against specific military installations, avoiding a broader escalation. However, the scale of Iran’s missile attack may push Israel to take more aggressive actions this time, including strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities or key infrastructure.
Can Israel kill its way to a regime change in Iran ?
In a video message on Monday, Israeli PM Netanyahu declared that a change in Iran's government was imminent. He asserted that the time when "Iran is finally free" would arrive much earlier than anticipated.
Netanyahu criticized the "fanatic theocrats" who currently govern Iran. He expressed his belief that once the Iranian regime is overthrown, the relationship between the two nations will undergo a significant transformation.
"Our two ancient peoples, the Jewish people and the Persian people, will finally be at peace. Our two countries, Israel and Iran, will be at peace," Netanyahu said, emphasizing the potential for a new era of harmony between the two nations, once the current Iranian leadership is no longer in power.
But can Israel bring about a regime change in Iran? Israel’s military approach of targeting key figures and infrastructure has had some success in its ongoing war with Hamas and Hezbollah. Hezbollah’s capabilities, particularly in southern Lebanon, have been significantly diminished. With Hezbollah on the backfoot, Israel might feel emboldened to strike deeper into Iran’s infrastructure or even its leadership, aiming to disrupt its political core.
However, Israel’s past experiences with Hamas and Hezbollah suggest that while leadership decapitation can cripple militant organizations, it rarely brings about the collapse of the wider structures that sustain them.
While Israel's intelligence and technological capabilities are superior, Iran has the resources and institutional depth to withstand leadership losses.
Moreover, the risks of a full-scale war with Iran remain a significant deterrent, especially without assured US military support. Norman Roule, former US intelligence officer on Iran, told the Wall Street Journal: “Israel will seek to reinforce the idea that its technological superiority and military skill allow it to strike any target in Iran.” But “a war with Iran would require the political, economic, and military support, if not participation by the United States,” Roule added.
A major Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities or economic infrastructure could provoke a larger conflict, and potentially accelerate Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “Such an airstrike could provoke Tehran to launch a larger missile barrage, orchestrate terrorist attacks against Israeli interests abroad, and step up its nuclear program, hastening Iran’s path to a bomb,” warned Roule.
Ultimately, while Israel may successfully weaken Hezbollah and target Iranian leadership figures, the broader question of whether military force alone can bring about regime change in Iran is doubtful. History has shown that while decapitation strikes may weaken adversarial forces, they rarely lead to political upheaval. Iran’s deep institutional strength and the support it enjoys from regional proxies, popularly known as 'axis of resistance' make it unlikely that airstrikes alone could dismantle the regime.
What they're saying
- US national security adviser Jake Sullivan acknowledged the gravity of Iran’s missile barrage, calling it a “significant escalation.” However, he emphasized that it was “ultimately defeated and ineffective,” thanks to the combined efforts of Israel and US missile defense systems. Despite the attack’s failure to cause significant damage or casualties, the symbolism of Iran's action cannot be overstated. It represents a bold move by Tehran to assert itself in the ongoing conflict and send a message that it will not stand idly by as its allies in Hezbollah and Hamas come under attack.
- Jonathan Panikoff, a former US intelligence officer now at the Atlantic Council, warned that the region is at a tipping point. “The challenge of avoiding a regional war is at its most difficult point since October 7,” Panikoff told the WSJ. Panikoff also highlighted the limitations of US diplomatic leverage, particularly in light of the administration’s struggle to broker a ceasefire between Israel and its adversaries in Gaza and Lebanon. “The US already lacks sufficient diplomatic leverage to compel a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon,” Panikoff added, underlining the difficulty of de-escalating the current situation.
- Israel’s response to Iran’s missile barrage will be critical in determining the future course of the conflict.
- The Biden administration has pledged to ensure that Iran faces “severe consequences” for its actions, although the specifics of those consequences remain unclear. Some analysts suggest that stepped-up sanctions enforcement or military support to Israel could be part of the US response. However, any US involvement risks deepening the conflict, particularly if Iran retaliates against US forces or interests in the region.
- Israel’s challenge will be to strike a balance between deterring further Iranian aggression and avoiding actions that could escalate the conflict beyond its control.
