Israel’s Iran Strikes May Topple Tehran Regime

Written by David Thompson.

Israel’s ongoing military campaign against Iran, now in its third day as of June 16, 2025, has escalated tensions in the Middle East to unprecedented levels, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggesting that the operation could lead to the collapse of Iran’s government. This development, coupled with extensive U.S. support, raises critical questions about the strategic objectives, regional consequences, and risks of a broader conflict.

Israel’s Ambitious Military Objectives

In a recent interview with Fox News, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined the goals of Israel’s bombing campaign, dubbed Operation Rising Lion, which began on June 13, 2025. He described the operation as targeting two primary threats: Iran’s nuclear program and its ballistic missile capabilities. Netanyahu asserted that the campaign could destabilize Iran’s government, citing its perceived weakness. The strikes have targeted key nuclear facilities, such as the Natanz enrichment plant, as well as military bases, missile production sites, and high-ranking officials, resulting in significant casualties, including top Iranian generals and nuclear scientists.

The scale of the operation is substantial, involving over 200 Israeli fighter jets, drones, and precision weapons smuggled into Iran by Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency. Iranian state media reported at least 78 deaths and over 320 injuries on the first day alone, with subsequent strikes targeting energy infrastructure, including the Shahran oil depot and a fuel tank south of Tehran. These attacks have disrupted Iran’s military and economic stability, aligning with Netanyahu’s claim that the regime is vulnerable to collapse under sustained pressure.

For professionals monitoring global security, this campaign represents a high-stakes gamble. The destruction of critical infrastructure could indeed weaken Iran’s government, but it also risks galvanizing domestic support for the regime, as citizens rally against external aggression. The precedent of Iraq’s 2003 invasion, where military intervention failed to produce a stable government, serves as a cautionary tale for those anticipating regime change in Tehran.

U.S. Role in Supporting Israel’s Campaign

The United States has played a significant role in enabling Israel’s military actions, providing intelligence, advanced weaponry, and assistance in intercepting Iranian retaliatory missiles and drones. Since January 2025, the Trump administration has approved billions in arms transfers to Israel, including a February package worth $7.4 billion that included precision-guided munitions like Hellfire missiles. These weapons have been instrumental in Israel’s targeted strikes, such as the assassination of Ali Shamkhani, a senior Iranian official involved in nuclear negotiations.

Netanyahu emphasized close coordination with President Donald Trump, noting frequent communication and prior notification of the attacks. However, reports suggest Trump rejected an Israeli proposal to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, indicating some limits to U.S. endorsement. The U.S. military’s active role in missile defense, including the deployment of the THAAD system in Israel, underscores Washington’s commitment to protecting its ally, even as it publicly distances itself from direct involvement in the strikes.

This level of U.S. support has significant implications for American interests. Business leaders and policymakers must consider the potential for Iranian retaliation against U.S. bases in Iraq, Syria, or the Gulf, which could result in American casualties and disrupt global energy markets. The Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil passes, remains a flashpoint, with Iran historically threatening to block it in response to aggression. Such a move could spike oil prices, impacting industries worldwide.

Impact on Nuclear Diplomacy and Regional Stability

Prior to the Israeli strikes, the U.S. and Iran were engaged in a sixth round of nuclear talks in Oman, scheduled for June 15, 2025, aimed at curbing Iran’s uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. The assassination of key Iranian negotiators and the destruction of nuclear facilities have derailed these efforts, with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declaring the talks “unjustifiable” in light of Israel’s actions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has condemned Iran for non-compliance with nuclear safeguards, but U.S. intelligence agencies maintain there is no evidence Tehran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, contradicting Netanyahu’s claims that Iran could produce a bomb within months.

The collapse of diplomacy has heightened the risk of escalation. Iran has retaliated with over 270 ballistic missiles and drones targeting Israel, with some penetrating Israel’s multilayered air defenses, including the Iron Dome. These attacks have caused at least 14 deaths and 390 injuries in Israel, while Iran reports 224 deaths and 1,277 injuries from Israeli strikes. The tit-for-tat exchanges have raised fears of a broader regional war, potentially involving Iranian-aligned groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Houthis in Yemen, both of which have vowed to support Tehran.

For those in international relations, the suspension of nuclear talks is a significant setback. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which limited Iran’s nuclear activities, collapsed in 2018 when the U.S. withdrew under Trump’s first term. The failure to revive a similar agreement now increases the likelihood of prolonged conflict, as Iran may accelerate its nuclear program in defiance of Western pressure. This scenario underscores the delicate balance between military action and diplomatic engagement in addressing proliferation risks.

Our Take

Israel’s bombing campaign in Iran, supported by extensive U.S. resources, represents a bold but perilous strategy to neutralize perceived threats while pursuing regime change. Netanyahu’s assertion that the campaign could topple Iran’s government overlooks the complexities of Iranian society and the potential for military action to strengthen hardline factions. The U.S.’s role as a key enabler, while stopping short of direct airstrikes, places it at risk of being drawn into a wider conflict, particularly if Iran targets American assets in retaliation. The derailment of nuclear negotiations is a missed opportunity to de-escalate tensions through diplomacy, and the ongoing violence threatens to destabilize the Middle East further, with ripple effects on global energy markets and security.

Policymakers and business leaders must prepare for prolonged uncertainty. The precedent of past interventions suggests that regime change is unlikely to yield a stable, pro-Western government in Tehran, and the human cost of the conflict—already in the hundreds—demands urgent efforts to restore dialogue. The international community, including powers like China and Russia, should press for de-escalation to prevent a catastrophic regional war. For now, the path forward requires balancing deterrence with a renewed commitment to diplomacy, lest the cycle of violence spiral beyond control.