A striking contrast in scale and history underpins a significant debate in Middle Eastern foreign policy: how can a nation as geographically compact and demographically modest as Israel advocates for regime change in a distant, vastly larger, and historically ancient power like Iran? This question often emerges in discussions concerning the trajectory of U.S. engagement in the region. Israel, a nation merely 78 years old, has a population of approximately 8.3 million. Of this, roughly 6.9 million are Jewish, with the remainder comprising Arab Muslims, Christians, and other minorities. This population is situated amidst about 5.3 million Palestinians living in the Israeli occupied territories. In stark contrast, Iran boasts a population of 90 million, inhabiting a landmass eighty times the size of Israel. Its recorded history spans more than 5,000 years. Despite this immense disparity and the 1,800-kilometer distance separating the two nations, with no shared borders, the notion of Israeli demands for regime change in Tehran persists in regional discourse.
Critics and analysts have sometimes asserted that Israel has wielded an unusual, and some might contend, an “unhealthy” influence over U.S. Middle Eastern foreign policy. This alleged influence, it is claimed, has contributed to drawing the United States into costly conflicts in Iraq, Libya, and Syria wars that, according to these perspectives, were not aligned with direct U.S. national interests. These conflicts have incurred trillions of dollars in expenditure and resulted in the loss of thousands of American lives. Afghanistan is typically excluded from this argument, given that the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks were based there. However, it is important to include studying the impact of regime change and its aftermath there. It is often noted in these discussions that Ronald Reagan was reportedly the last U.S. president who did not allow Israel to influence U.S. regional foreign policy.
From Intervention to Instability: The Narrative of Regime Change
The strategy of regime change has yielded complex and often devastating consequences across the Middle East and beyond, as evidenced by operations in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan.
Iraq: The Regime Change Through “Shock and Awe” and Its Aftermath
The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 commenced with an intense aerial bombardment campaign dubbed “shock and awe.” This offensive targeted Baghdad and other key cities, crippling Iraq’s command and control infrastructure, government ministries, military installations, and strategic sites. This was a boots-on-the-ground operation. The aim was to incapacitate the regime and its leadership before ground troops entered Baghdad in early April. Saddam Hussein was captured in December 2003, signaling the symbolic end of his rule.
In the interim, the U.S. established the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) under Paul Bremer. Decisions to disband the Iraqi military and enforce “de-Ba’athification”, removing former Ba’ath Party members from public office created a significant power vacuum. These policies alienated large segments of the Iraqi population, particularly Sunnis who had held many positions under Saddam. The subsequent period saw a surge in insurgency, sectarian violence, a breakdown of internal security, and the eventual rise of extremist groups like ISIS, complicating stabilization efforts. A new Iraq-U.S. drafted constitution was established, and elections in 2005 brought a Shiite-led coalition to power, shifting political control from the former Sunni minority. The U.S. officially ended combat operations in 2011.
While an estimated 20,000–30,000 Iraqis likely died in the initial overthrow of Saddam, the total death toll attributed to the invasion and its aftermath is far higher, with some estimates reaching up to 600,000 or more, predominantly civilians, in a country of 33 million (2011 data). The total cost to the U.S. is estimated at $2.9 trillion, with 4,500 U.S. soldiers and 3,650 contractors dead, and over 32,000 soldiers wounded. Israel considers this regime change a success.
Libya: The Regime Change from Uprising to Persistent Instability
Muammar Gaddafi’s 42-year rule in Libya concluded in 2011 amidst the “Arab Spring” uprisings. Initial protests in eastern Libya escalated into civil war following the Gaddafi regime’s forceful response. A critical turning point occurred in March 2011 with the intervention of a NATO-led multinational coalition, which imposed a no-fly zone and conducted airstrikes supporting the rebel movement. This coordinated effort, combined with rebel ground advances, led to the fall of Tripoli in August 2011 and Gaddafi’s death in October of the same year.
The post-Gaddafi era has been marked by profound instability. The country descended into a second civil war in 2014, with numerous armed groups and rival governments vying for power. While a ceasefire was brokered in October 2020 and a unity government formed in 2021, political divisions persist, and nationwide elections remain unfulfilled. Libya continues to face a fragile security situation, often punctuated by sporadic clashes between militias. Estimates of casualties vary widely, but tens of thousands have been killed or injured since 2011, with hundreds of thousands more displaced from a population of approximately 7.0 million. Israel considers this regime change a success.
Syria: Regime Change Efforts Amidst Broader Conflict
U.S. involvement in Syria, which began during the Obama administration, primarily aimed to counter ISIS and exert pressure on the Assad regime without a large ground troop deployment. Between September 2014 and March 2024, coalition air campaigns resulted in thousands of deaths in Syria. While avoiding a full-scale invasion, total U.S. financial expenditure reached over $15 billion. The broader Syrian conflict has been devastating, with total death toll estimates ranging from 250,000 to over 500,000. This includes more than 226,000 civilian fatalities by early 2023, and potentially 580,000–618,000 deaths by 2024 in a country with a population of approximately 23 million.
The central government is now a transitional body led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, which has consolidated control over much of the country. Turkey maintains a significant military presence in northern Syria, supporting the Syrian National Army (SNA) and aiming to create a buffer zone. Israel has seized territory in the buffer zone near the Golan Heights following the Assad regime’s collapse, citing security concerns, and continues operations in southern Syria. Israel considers this regime change a success.
Afghanistan: The Regime Change and The Longest War’s End
Regime change in Afghanistan commenced in October 2001 with Operation Enduring Freedom, launched by the U.S. and allies in response to the 9/11 attacks. This was a boots-on-the-ground mission. The objective was to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban for harboring Osama bin Laden. Within weeks, U.S. and coalition forces, alongside Afghan opposition groups like the Northern Alliance, overthrew the Taliban regime. A U.S. backed transitional government was established, leading to the creation of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in 2004 with elected leadership. However, the Taliban regrouped and waged a prolonged insurgency for two decades, hindering stability and reconstruction efforts.
The human and financial toll of the Afghan war was immense. According to some estimates, over 241,000 people were killed, including around 71,000 civilians, in a country of 40 million. The conflict also claimed over 2,460 U.S. service members and more than 3,800 U.S. contractors, with an estimated 20,000+ American troops wounded. Financially, the war cost the United States more than $2.3 trillion. The U.S. withdrew its forces in August 2021, leading to the swift return of the Taliban to power, marking the dramatic end of America’s longest war.
Old Playbook, Same Results: The Perils of Imposed Change
The overall assessment of regime changes operations by external powers in the Middle East points overwhelmingly toward failure. These interventions have frequently led to profound instability, created dangerous power vacuums, fostered the rise of extremist groups, and triggered devastating humanitarian crises, often accompanied by significant economic ruin. Initially promoted as efforts to advance stability, democracy, or human rights, the long-term consequences have consistently contradicted these objectives. Instead, they have produced unforeseen negative outcomes, frequently necessitating prolonged foreign involvement.
Notably, Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu view these operations as successful and beneficial to Israel. This perspective may raise concerns in some circles that Israel’s long-term interests are at odds with those of the people in the region.
Israel’s Strategy for Iran: Balkanization Over Liberation, and the Illusion of Democracy
Israel’s broader aim for Iran appears to be the balkanization of the country, carving it into weak, bankrupt statelets incapable of posing a threat. The notion that Israel overthrowing the Ayatollah’s government would bring democracy and prosperity is ludicrous. One need only look at Gaza and Lebanon to imagine the aftermath in Iran.
Israel must have learned lessons from its 12-day conflict with Iran. Assassinating high-profile figures or launching limited military strikes will not bring down the regime. Despite its totalitarian rule, corruption, economic failures, and human rights abuses, the Islamic government remains deeply entrenched after 46 years in power. The conflict also revealed Iranians’ strong nationalism. They do not rally behind foreign powers bombing their country under the guise of “liberation” or support. If anything, such attacks only fuel their defiance and unity against external threats.
Israel’s new strategy for toppling Iran’s government would likely involve devastating infrastructure and civilian centers to make life unbearable, effectively waging war on the population. The calculus is clear: if suffering reaches a breaking point, the people may rise against the government. Simultaneously, attacks would aim to weaken central authority, particularly in regions with historic separatist aspirations. Israel would likely fund and promote separatist movements, fracturing Iran into unstable, dysfunctional entities. For those dreaming of a free, prosperous post-regime Iran, the region’s history offers a grim reality check. The end result would resemble Syria or Libya, a shattered nation.
Conflict with Iran Could Eclipse Past U.S. Wars and Reshape the Middle East
Before examining the regional repercussions of a dysfunctional Iran, it’s important to consider how outside interference has contributed to state failure in countries in that region.
Somalia offers a stark example of how instability spreads. Though lacking Iran’s geopolitical weight, financial resources, or military strength, its collapse enabled piracy to flourish with 358 attacks recorded between 2010 and 2015. International suppression efforts eventually reduced attacks to just 16 from 2016 to 2024 but required years and billions of dollars. And Somalia, a far weaker state than Iran, serves as a mere preview of the chaos a power vacuum in Tehran could unleash.
Yemen presents another cautionary tale. After its central government collapsed amid a proxy war involving Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Iran, the Houthi movement emerged as a dominant force. Despite relentless bombing and isolation, the Houthis have launched over 60 attacks on Israel since October 2023, firing more than 200 missiles and drones. They have disrupted critical shipping routes from the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea and continue to challenge international forces. The U.S. military response has already exceeded $1 billion, including the loss of multiple MQ-9 Reaper drones (valued at $30 million each) and an F/A-18 Super Hornet, reportedly downed by friendly fire.
Iran- The prospect of a military conflict or regime collapse in Iran raises the specter of regional chaos on a scale far greater than seen in previous U.S.-led wars. Iran, which shares land borders with seven countries including Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and maritime borders in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, sits at the heart of a region already fraught with tension. The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of the world’s oil supply passes, would become acutely vulnerable to disruption by radical groups equipped with military-grade weaponry. Ensuring its security would require a military commitment eclipsing those made in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Ukraine. The logistical demands alone would be staggering. The U.S. could find itself needing to deploy hundreds of thousands of troops to secure Iran’s 1,100-mile southern coast, a stretch that includes the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Sea of Oman. For perspective, the U.S. has maintained approximately 30,000 troops along the 155-mile Korean DMZ for over 70 years. The scale of defending the southern coast Iran, a strategically critical region would represent an unprecedented undertaking.
Moreover, the collapse of central authority in Iran would likely unleash a wave of instability across the Middle East. A power vacuum in Tehran could serve as a catalyst for sectarian violence, inflame anti-Western sentiment, and provide fertile ground for extremist factions. These groups, potentially armed with drones, missiles, and enriched uranium (dirty bombs), could extend their influence from Afghanistan to Lebanon, further destabilizing an already volatile region. Rogue elements would undoubtedly seek to exploit the chaos, making any military intervention not just costly, but dangerously unpredictable.
The economic fallout would be immediate, spiking inflation, unemployment, and plunging GDPs worldwide. A disruption in oil flow would paralyze supply chains and send shockwaves through every major economy. The collapse of Iran would destabilize every neighboring country. There will be new wave of immigrants pushing through boarders, heading to Europe and its transit countries looking for safety and securities. Vital shipping lanes through the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean could be disrupted or shut down entirely. Energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states would become prime targets, as would all U.S. military bases. As seen in Afghanistan, where securing bases and personnel became a top priority amid rising Taliban attacks and insider threats, the U.S. will find itself forced into a defensive posture even while attempting broader missions.
President Trump appears to be exercising caution regarding a broader conflict with Iran, despite calls from some factions for more aggressive intervention. While the U.S. has undertaken limited attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, the President seems to recognize the significant dangers of a prolonged war. Such a conflict, he may have calculated, would primarily benefit Israel in reestablishing its hegemony in the region and Russia, which would profit from higher oil prices, while severely impacting Europe and China, who are heavily reliant on regional oil supplies. Ultimately, the U.S. would be the biggest loser. The calculus for him is simple: if Afghanistan cost the U.S. $2.3 trillion, the cost of a potential war with Iran will be an order of magnitude higher and will require boots on the ground for another endless war based on disputed pretexts of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. A destabilized Iran would undoubtedly send global shockwaves, leaving no major power untouched.
This restraint aligns with President Trump’s repeated focus on China as the primary threat to U.S. interests, viewing an Israel-Iran conflict as a diversion from his strategic objectives. Engaging in a war with Iran on behalf of Israel would also directly contradict his “America First” promise to his supporters, many of whom have vocally expressed their opposition to the U.S. being drawn into such a conflict. With an eye on upcoming midterm elections, President Trump is keenly aware of the importance of maintaining the support of his MAGA base, making a costly and unpopular war a politically perilous endeavor.
Iran’s Resilient Opposition: Pushing Back Against Theocracy
A powerful opposition movement in Iran has been steadily gaining momentum, posing a significant challenge to the government’s decades long control. Deep-seated discontent, believed to affect 80-85% of the population, has recently scored notable victories, most visibly in pushing back against the regime’s strict Hejab laws, a key instrument of social control. This resistance signals a broad and growing demand for fundamental political change, with many Iranians calling for a secular government. Women and youth have been at the forefront of the movement, employing protests, social media campaigns, and public acts of defiance to oppose theocratic rule. Despite brutal crackdowns including violent suppression, mass arrests, and killings, the opposition has remained resilient.
However, an unprovoked attack by Israel has given the Iranian government a pretext to tighten its grip under the banner of national security. Contrary to conventional wisdom in the West, easing sanctions and reducing pressure on Tehran could actually strengthen the opposition. Historically, a less confrontational external approach has led the government to relax internal controls, creating space for progressive movements to advance their goals.
Conclusion
The prospect of regime change in Iran, driven by external forces, is a perilous gamble that risks unleashing chaos far beyond its borders. History has shown that such interventions in the Middle East, whether in Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Afghanistan have rarely delivered stability or democracy. Instead, they have sown destruction, empowered extremists, and left nations fractured. Iran’s collapse would destabilize a critical region, threaten global energy supplies, and ignite humanitarian crises with ripple effects worldwide. Meanwhile, the Iranian people’s own struggle for change, though resilient, risks being undermined by foreign intervention. The lesson is clear: the cure of forced regime change is often worse than the disease. A wiser path lies in supporting internal movements for reform while avoiding the catastrophic consequences of yet another misguided intervention.
Article by M. Davar
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of IranOnline.com.