Yet amid the public discourse focused on tactical targets – such as eliminating nuclear facilities and disrupting military infrastructure – it is time to openly acknowledge what has long been understood in strategic circles but rarely articulated publicly: Israel's strategic goal must be the complete removal of the Iranian regime. This is neither deterrence nor delay; it is the explicit, unequivocal goal of ending the rule of the Ayatollahs in Tehran. Importantly, this goal finds clear justification in international law, anchored firmly in doctrines such as "extended self-defense" and the UN-sanctioned Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Given Iran's nuclear breakout capability, this goal is now urgent and unavoidable.
Under modern international law, states have the right – and indeed the obligation – to respond decisively, not only to immediate threats but also to persistent and existential dangers. Article 51 of the UN Charter enshrines a nation's inherent right to self-defense against armed threats. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the international community has expanded its understanding of legitimate self-defense to include preemptive and strategic actions, recognizing the right of nations to neutralize states that pose persistent, active threats to their existence. Iran, governed by the Ayatollahs, clearly meets this criterion.
Moreover, international law recognizes the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine, obligating the global community to intervene when a government engages in severe oppression or systematic violence against its own people. The Iranian regime not only represents a nuclear threat but has systematically oppressed its population and exported deadly violence across the region, leading to hundreds of thousands of victims in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and beyond.
Clear and explicit international legal precedents already exist for regime change. In 2001, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was toppled due to its support for international terrorism. Similarly, NATO's intervention in Libya in 2011 explicitly justified targeting Muammar Gaddafi due to his violent oppression of civilians. Additionally, the 2003 U.S.-led intervention in Iraq was legally grounded on the necessity to neutralize the ongoing threat posed by Saddam Hussein to regional and global peace.
Targeting senior regime officials – from political leadership to commanders of the IRGC – is not merely legitimate but strategically essential. These leaders are not mere combatants but architects of policies of threat, oppression, and terrorism. There is no reason they should enjoy greater immunity than the soldiers they send to their deaths. History repeatedly demonstrates that the targeted elimination of top regime leaders is both strategically effective and legally defensible when those leaders directly orchestrate existential threats.
Critics often portray regime change as a naive attempt to impose democracy externally. However, the Iranian case differs fundamentally from previous Western-led efforts in Iraq or Libya. More than 70 percent of Iran's population is under the age of 40, a generation weary of authoritarian rule, repression, and isolation. Mass protests across Iran demonstrate the regime's reliance on force over popular support. Israel's message must be unequivocal: Our conflict is not with the Iranian people but solely with the oppressive regime that holds them hostage. A democratic and stable Iran would not only benefit Iranians themselves but would also significantly enhance regional stability and peace.
Israel today operates not merely as a regional power, but as a global strategic actor with advanced military, cyber, and intelligence capabilities. The Israeli doctrine of "a lion out of necessity" – which compels Israel to build capabilities akin to those of global powers to survive existential threats – has proven effective during the current campaign. Regime change should not be Israel's responsibility alone. The West, too, must recognize that regime change in Iran is a shared international interest, crucial for global stability. The end of the Ayatollah regime is not merely an Israeli objective but a regional and global imperative.
Backed by international law, strategic urgency, and moral clarity, Israel should unapologetically lead the effort to remove the Iranian regime – boldly, decisively, and without hesitation. Eliminating the primary source of Middle East instability is both a strategic necessity and a moral obligation.
Shay Gal is an international politics and crisis management expert specializing in strategic communication, geopolitics, and public diplomacy.
