The persistent protest wave sweeping Iran has ignited Israeli hopes for dramatic regime transformation – the kind that might fundamentally reshape Tehran's approach toward Jerusalem. Yet this optimism demands a sobering caveat: Regime change in Iran carries no guarantee of serving Israeli interests. Some potential outcomes could prove catastrophically worse.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly backed Iranian demonstrators, anticipating the demise of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's rule. From Israel's vantage point, dismantling a regime committed to its destruction – one that pursued military nuclear capabilities while constructing a proxy "ring of fire" encircling Israeli territory – represents a potentially game-changing Middle Eastern development. Yet regime collapse offers no assurance that successor governments will adopt more moderate or Israel-friendly positions. The notion of restoring the Shah's monarchy or installing overtly pro-Western leadership remains largely a fantasy.
More troubling still, pre-collapse developments could spawn dangerous transformations. Should the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) dramatically eclipse clerical authority, Tehran might abandon Khamenei's comparative caution, embracing aggressive postures regarding both nuclear advancement and direct confrontation with Israel.
Seemingly "positive" developments carry hidden dangers too. Moderate factions gaining power and negotiating fresh international agreements could trigger sanctions relief, economic revitalization, and political rehabilitation for Iran, while simultaneously eroding global willingness to challenge Tehran, leaving Israel diplomatically isolated, minus meaningful American support.
Khamenei's paradoxical benefits
Despite posing existential threats, Khamenei's regime provides Israel with certain international advantages. His intransigent refusal to halt domestic enrichment blocks problematic nuclear deal restoration, while his ideological hostility enables Jerusalem to assemble broad anti-Iran coalitions.
Should protesters topple the government, nationalist or authoritarian successors appear likelier than moderates. Their Israel policies – particularly post-direct military engagement – could manifest rigidity and hostility even absent Islamist ideological frameworks.
Opposition forces don't uniformly embrace pro-Israel positions. Israel's grasp of Iranian internal opposition remains severely limited. Assuming all regime opponents automatically support Israel inverts reality. Current protests encompass diverse actors pursuing varied agendas: Baluchestan militants, Kurdish insurgents, bazaar merchants, and urban students. Syrian precedent suggests emerging Iranian leadership might pursue Western economic engagement while maintaining anti-Israel stances. Citizens brainwashed with anti-Israeli propaganda won't rapidly abandon ingrained enemy perceptions.
Historical irony underscores this complexity: the Shah – Israel's former ally – originally championed Iranian nuclear development. Even future Tehran governments favorably disposed toward Jerusalem might retain strategic military capabilities rather than dismantling them.
Another crucial reality: despite Israel's recent campaign, Tehran retains substantial missile inventories plus nuclear infrastructure theoretically enabling enrichment of remaining uranium stocks to 90% weapons-grade purity – a dramatic leap toward bomb production.
This proves especially perilous because Tehran's leadership, despite its dogmatism, has maintained relatively methodical, cautious strategic decision-making. Regime transformation scenarios raise alarming prospects of more extreme factions – the Revolutionary Guards foremost – seizing these capabilities and deploying them without hesitation.
Worse scenarios loom: governmental collapse could enable terrorist elements operating inside Iran to capture strategic assets. Beyond extreme factions accessing sensitive capabilities, Iranian governmental disintegration could trigger complete control loss over these capabilities – carrying severe regional and international consequences.
Therefore, while Israeli aspirations for Iranian regime change prove understandable and natural, crucial recognition matters: regime transformation guarantees no policy transformation. Post-Khamenei realities could confront Israel with complex, dangerous circumstances – potentially worse than present conditions.
The writer is a senior researcher in the Iran program at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS).
