The missile strike on Israel could revive the dream of regime change inside the Islamic Republic.
Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, the escalation across the Middle East, and now the invasion of Lebanon, the biggest question on the table has been how Iran would react. Surely it could not just watch on as Israel dealt shattering blows to two of its closest allies: Hamas, and now Hezbollah? Now we know. In response to Israel’s killing of Hezbollah’s senior leaders, Iran fired a barrage of missiles at Israel’s territory on October 1. Seeking to both stay Iran’s hand and reassure Israel, the United States stationed two aircraft carriers in the area around Iran and, in the last two weeks alone, doubled the number of strike aircraft deployed in the area. And while some of the missiles fell across Israel and the West Bank, most were intercepted by Israel’s defence systems, with support from American aircraft and warships.
But acts based on certain intentions often create unintended effects that run counter to those same intentions. That’s especially true in wartime, when fear, misperception, and hubris abound. So American muscle-flexing may have reduced the scale of Iran’s retaliation against Israel; but it may also embolden Prime Minister Netanyahu to strike back at Iran even harder, as he has already promised. Indeed – he may even use this opportunity and the backing provided by the Biden administration to precipitate the unravelling of the entire Iranian state.
Netanyahu’s strategy may hinge on the assumption that the time for a decisive blow against Iran’s regime has arrived. With Hezbollah and Hamas on the defensive, and Iran retaliating for Israel’s actions, the Israeli leader might view this moment as the right one to escalate further. The missile strikes on Israel could provide the catalyst Netanyahu needs to justify a more aggressive military response.
Moreover, if Netanyahu aligns himself more closely with the U.S. on this issue, he could secure additional backing for such a move. The Biden administration, already committed to ensuring Israel’s security, may be reluctant to push back against Israeli military actions, particularly if Israel’s actions are framed as self-defense against Iranian aggression. This creates a potentially dangerous dynamic where Netanyahu could feel emboldened to take more risks in the pursuit of what he sees as a strategic necessity for Israel.
In this context, Netanyahu might not just seek a limited military strike on Iranian assets or proxies. He could aim for something far more ambitious: the weakening, if not the collapse, of the Iranian regime. With domestic turmoil in Iran already a simmering issue, Netanyahu could capitalize on these vulnerabilities. Striking Iran at a time of both external and internal pressure could push the regime further into crisis, potentially leading to regime change or a significant shift in power.
However, this strategy is fraught with danger. A direct confrontation with Iran could lead to broader regional instability, drawing in other powers like Russia and China. It could also exacerbate anti-Israeli sentiment across the Middle East, alienating potential allies in the region. Netanyahu’s gamble, if this is his plan, is a high-stakes bet on Israel’s military superiority and its ability to maintain American support in the face of escalating tensions.
The risks are enormous, but Netanyahu’s history suggests that he might be willing to push forward with a bold plan, betting that Israel can withstand the fallout. His pursuit of regime change in Iran could become the defining feature of his leadership in this war, shaping the future of the Middle East for years to come. The consequences, however, will depend on how much room he has to maneuver in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.
