EditIsrael’s strikes on Iran: a bid for regime change amid escalating risks
The second wave of Israeli strikes aim to destabilise the regime’s economic and political foundations
On 13 June Israel launched a sweeping offensive against Iran, dubbed Operation Rising Lion, targeting nuclear facilities, missile factories, and senior military and scientific figures in a campaign that signals ambitions beyond mere containment of Tehran’s nuclear program.
As Reuters reports, the scale of the attacks – coupled with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s direct appeal to the Iranian people to reject their “oppressive” regime – hints at a larger goal: regime change in Tehran.
Yet, as Israel strikes critical civilian infrastructure, including the South Pars gas field and Asaluyeh oil refinery, the feasibility of toppling Iran’s theocratic leadership remains uncertain, with experts warning of prolonged conflict, severe geopolitical repercussions, and the risk of entrenching hardliners. French President Emmanuel Macron’s June 13 statement that the conflict “will last” underscores the global alarm, as oil markets spike and fears of a regional war grow.
Macron’s Middle East diplomacy: balancing restraint and support amid Israel’s strike on Iran
Israel’s ambitious strikes: targeting the heart of Iran
Israel’s assault, described by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) as a “long-planned operation,” began on 13 June, with over 70 aircraft dismantling Iran’s air defences and striking the Natanz nuclear enrichment site, missile production bases in Kermanshah, and key figures like Revolutionary Guards commander Hossein Salami and nuclear scientists Fereydoun Abbasi and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi.
A second wave on 14 June targeted civilian infrastructure, including the South Pars gas field, Iran’s largest, and the Asaluyeh refinery, alongside a port explosion in Kangan, killing at least 30 soldiers and wounding 55 civilians, per Iranian media.
These strikes, which crippled parts of Iran’s energy sector, aim not only to delay its nuclear ambitions – deemed in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty by the U.N. nuclear watchdog – but also to destabilise the regime’s economic and political foundations.
Netanyahu’s unprecedented address to Iranians, stating, “The Islamic regime, which has oppressed you for almost 50 years, threatens to destroy our country,” frames the campaign as a call for internal uprising.
Michael Singh, a former U.S. official at the Washington Institute, told Reuters, “One assumes that one of the reasons that Israel is doing that is that they’re hoping to see regime change.”
The targeted killings of military commanders and scientists, alongside attacks on energy infrastructure, are designed to erode the regime’s credibility at home and among allies like Hezbollah and Syria’s transitional government, potentially sparking public unrest. However, Israel’s official stance, articulated by its Washington embassy, insists it respects the Iranian people’s right to choose their government, denying explicit regime change intent.
Is regime change achievable?
The prospect of regime change in Iran, a goal long championed by Israeli hawks, faces formidable obstacles. Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. intelligence officer at the Atlantic Council, warns that toppling the regime could backfire, potentially ushering in an even more hardline successor.
“History tells us it can always be worse,” he told Reuters, citing post-regime change chaos in Iraq and Libya.
Iran’s theocratic system, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has weathered decades of sanctions, protests, and external pressure, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) ensuring internal control. The 2009 Green Movement and 2022 Mahsa Amini protests, while significant, failed to dislodge the regime, and recent strikes on civilian infrastructure- vital for Iran’s economy- could rally nationalist sentiment rather than incite rebellion.
Attacks on oil and gas facilities, such as South Pars, which supplies 70% of Iran’s gas, and Asaluyeh, a key refinery, threaten to cripple Tehran’s revenue, with Iran exporting 1.8 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude, mostly to China. Brent crude surged 14% to $78.50 on 13 June, reflecting market fears of supply disruptions, though OPEC’s 5.6 million bpd spare capacity, led by Saudi Arabia, could mitigate losses.
Yet, targeting civilian infrastructure risks alienating Iranians, as a senior Tehran official warned during an emergency meeting that strikes on water or energy could provoke public unrest against the regime – but also against Israel. Helima Croft of RBC Capital Markets notes that such strikes could “hurt the Iranian public more than the regime,” potentially strengthening hardliners by framing Israel as an existential threat.
Israel’s limited munitions and the fortified nature of Iran’s nuclear sites, like Fordow, further complicate the campaign. Israeli National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi admitted to Channel 13 TV, “There’s no way to destroy a nuclear programme by military means,” suggesting the strikes aim to create conditions for a U.S.-Iran deal rather than total destruction.
Without U.S. military involvement, which President Donald Trump has signalled he opposes, Israel’s capacity to sustain a prolonged campaign is questionable.
Duration of the conflict: a prolonged standoff?
Macron’s warning that the Israel-Iran conflict “will last” aligns with expert predictions of a drawn-out struggle. The IDF’s framing of the operation as “prolonged” and Ambassador Danny Danon’s pledge to continue until Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities are “eliminated” suggest a multi-phase campaign. Analysts like Richard Bronze of Energy Aspects estimate the conflict could persist for “months, if not years,” absent a diplomatic breakthrough, given Iran’s retaliatory capacity and Israel’s determination. Iran’s launch of 100 ballistic missiles on 13 June, though largely intercepted, and its threats to target Israel’s gas fields, like Leviathan, signal a tit-for-tat escalation.
Trita Parsi, an Iran expert, warned on X that Israel’s strategy could lead to “endless war” if it relies on repeated strikes to delay Iran’s nuclear program, a view echoed by Marion Messmer of Chatham House, who cites Israel’s 1981 Osirak strike on Iraq as a cautionary tale that accelerated, rather than halted, nuclear ambitions.
A regional powder keg
The conflict’s escalation, particularly targeting civilian infrastructure, carries profound geopolitical risks. Iran’s threats to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for 13 million bpd of crude and 5 million bpd of products, could destabilize global energy markets, impacting economies from China to Europe. Qatar, exporting 20% of global LNG through Hormuz, faces vulnerabilities, as do Saudi Arabia and the UAE, whose oil facilities were targeted by Iran-backed Houthis in 2019. Iran’s proxies, including Hezbollah and Iraqi militias, could attack U.S. bases or Gulf infrastructure, drawing in regional powers and risking a wider war.
China, Iran’s largest oil buyer, condemned the strikes as “aggression” but avoided harsh rhetoric to protect its $1.5 million bpd imports, while Turkey’s condemnation and plans for Syrian airbases signal regional realignments. The U.S., while aiding Israel’s defence against Iran’s missiles, has distanced itself from regime change, with Trump praising the strikes as “excellent” but opposing broader involvement. This reticence, alongside Saudi Arabia’s neutrality efforts, may limit escalation but risks alienating allies like the UAE, which hosts U.S. bases.
Sources: Reuters, Ynetnews, Atlantic Council, CNBC, The New York Times, posts on X
Caption: People drive as fire and smoke rise from Tehran’s oil warehouse in Tehran, Iran, 15 June 2024. Israel continues strikes on Iran’s nuclear program and energy facilities. [EPA/ABEDIN TAHERKENAREH]
Updated: June 15, 2025 - 06:45
