Part I — Regime Change and Strategic Consequences: The Real Stakes of the U.S.–Israel War With Iran

A Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) being launched from the USS Winston S. Churchill as part of Operation Epic Fury. Photo Credit: CENTCOM, X "eurasiareview"

This piece originally appeared in EURASIAREVEIW on March 05, 2025

By: Najib Azad

The United States and Israel have embarked on a profound new phase by launching direct military operations against Iran. Reactions have varied widely, from relief to concern and from celebration to fear. Yet, beneath these emotional responses lies a critical strategic inquiry: does undermining or toppling the Iranian regime enhance global security, or does it lay the groundwork for further instability?

Under Ali Khamenei's leadership, the Iranian regime has been distinctly unambiguous and aggressive. It has exerted influence through proxy networks and an entrenched ideological approach, positioning itself against Western power and Israeli sovereignty. However, history warns us not to confuse regime change with a resulting stabilization in the region; strategic outcomes often follow unpredictable paths.

The real question isn’t whether the Iranian regime is repressive; it’s about what might replace it.

The Complications of Regime Change

Modern military history consistently illustrates the challenges of regime change. For instance, after the Taliban's rapid fall in Afghanistan in 2001, chaos ensued rather than stabilization, leading to a two-decade insurgency with grave casualties, including nearly 3,000 American lives and countless Afghan deaths. Moreover, the Taliban eventually regained power, proving that military action does not guarantee political transformation.

Similarly, the ousting of Saddam Hussein in Iraq dismantled the central authority and resulted in a fragmentation of state institutions, leading to the rise of insurgent groups and sectarian violence. In Syria, the collapse of state structure opened doors for competing regional and global actors.

While Iran may have a more centralized and ideologically rigid system than these cases, the fundamental lesson remains: regimes can fall more swiftly than their systems can disintegrate. The intricate networks of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, intelligence entities, and religious bodies create a tightly woven structure. If the central leadership fails, the fate of these networks—whether they disappear or merely decentralize—becomes crucial.

Regime Change from the Air?

A major assumption in contemporary air operations is the belief that precision strikes against command structures will lead to political collapse. However, historical evidence shows that significant regime change rarely results from air power alone. When regime change becomes a stated aim, the strategic landscape shifts dramatically. The removal of a leadership figure does not inherently confer legitimacy to a successor, and ambitious goals typically necessitate a ground presence—a factor that generally increases duration, costs, and risks.

Conducting urban operations in a country of over 85 million people is markedly more complex than undertaking limited strikes. Major cities like Tehran and Mashhad are heavily populated, politically active, and secured, making them challenging environments for military operations. Should external involvement escalate beyond airstrikes, the potential for long-term conflict rises significantly.

Legitimacy and Authority

Former President Donald Trump characterized military strikes as essential for countering an imminent threat, yet the U.S. Constitution designates war declaration to Congress. The framers, such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, implemented checks on executive power because of the risks inherent to concentrated military authority. Current military actions may proceed under executive orders, but sustained military efforts require solid institutional support to maintain political legitimacy. When regime change is the declared goal, the expansive nature of the operation mandates clear democratic consent. Framing a conflict as a deterrent effort fundamentally differs from defining it as a transformative venture, with significant implications for both strategy and governance.

Nuclear Dynamics and Deterrence

An Iran equipped with nuclear weapons would drastically reshape the deterrence landscape. The concern transcends the mere prospect of Tehran deploying such weapons; it's about how their possession would constrain Israel's strategic options indefinitely. Unlike other nuclear-armed nations that engage in established deterrence, Iran’s hostile ideology towards Israel complicates stability calculations significantly.

For the U.S., the implications extend even further; a nuclear Iran could realign regional power dynamics in ways that empower Russian and Chinese influence throughout the Middle East. The patterns of strategic alliances would inevitably evolve. However, efforts to dismantle nuclear capabilities through force carry their own set of dangers, as nuclear efforts can be hidden, dispersed, or reestablished. In the event of regime disintegration, maintaining clear command and control becomes even more vital.

Iran’s Retaliatory Mechanism

Iran’s military responses against nations hosting American bases—including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq—demonstrate a strategy aimed at broadening the repercussions without necessarily instigating a widespread war. By targeting energy infrastructures and vital maritime routes like the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran has effectively communicated its ability to create global economic disruptions.

Gulf nations find themselves in a precarious situation: continued security collaboration with the U.S. risks exposing them to Iranian retaliation, while distancing from U.S. protection weakens their own deterrent effectiveness. Iran's goal might not be conventional victory but rather complicating strategic calculations—raising costs for adversaries without prompting a direct coalition against it.

The Proxy Dilemma

Iran has historically depended on non-state actors and cross-border networks for influence. Groups like Hezbollah and various militias across the region have created an outer defense framework. Should Iran’s central authority weaken, will these networks dissipate, or will they gain greater independence? The experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown how displaced regimes can reorganize as insurgents, while Syria highlighted that proxy competition can endure indefinitely.

The fragmentation of Iran could give rise to competing armed entities seeking legitimacy and resources. This decentralized conflict could lead to instability that lasts far longer than centralized authoritarian control. The central question remains: does weakening Tehran decrease proxy warfare or merely shift its dynamics?

The Russia-China Angle

Strategic analysts must also recognize the broader power alignments at play. Leaders like Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin approach Middle Eastern conflicts through balance-of-power analyses, not just ideological perspectives. If unilateral military actions become the norm, rival nations may view these as precedents.

A destabilized Iran could open the door for increased external influences; conversely, a weakened yet still functional regime may deepen collaborations with non-Western allies. The ripple consequences of this conflict extend well beyond the Middle East.

The Long-Term Risks of War

Quick military actions often result in lasting repercussions. The experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq illustrate how rapid regime changes can spiral into prolonged strife. Given Iran’s significant size, ideological fervor, and institutional intricacies, any scenario involving destabilization will likely be equally complex. The most optimistic outlook anticipates restored deterrence and nuclear retreat, while the most pessimistic predicts fragmentation, insurgency, economic disruptions, and a surge in proxy warfare. Between these extremes lies an area of strategic uncertainty.

The Underlying Strategic Dilemma

Opposing authoritarian regimes does not inherently justify the methods employed to dismantle them. The pivotal strategic question remains whether this conflict will diminish long-term risks or merely redistribute them. Will undermining Tehran stabilize nuclear deterrence or jeopardize it? Does fracturing its centralized authority weaken or multiply proxy networks? Does demonstrating military prowess deter adversaries or encourage retaliatory asymmetrical responses? These answers won't surface immediately, but one thing is clear: the outcomes will reach far beyond the immediate battlefield. The ensuing framework will ultimately decide whether this conflict marks a definitive shift or simply the beginning of another extended episode of regional instability.