Israel's Secret Ambition: Toppling Iran's Regime, But at What Cost?
In the midst of global speculation regarding the US military buildup in the Middle East, Israel's leadership has maintained an unusual silence. While the world discusses the potential implications, Israel's Prime Minister has been notably quiet about his superpower ally's confrontation with his country's arch-nemesis. This silence, according to Danny Citrinowicz, a former member of Israel's Defence Intelligence, highlights the significance Netanyahu places on this moment.
Netanyahu's silence is strategic, as he sees a golden opportunity with the US forces in the Gulf and Trump's willingness to confront Iran. Asaf Cohen, a former deputy director of Israel's signals intelligence unit, agrees, suggesting that Israel is intentionally letting the US take the lead due to its superior capabilities and global legitimacy.
Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently viewed Iran as the primary threat to Israel's security and the main source of instability in the region. His silence doesn't indicate a lack of communication with the US but rather a calculated approach. This week, Israel's military intelligence chief met with US intelligence agencies in Washington, reportedly discussing potential targets in Iran.
Citrinowicz believes Netanyahu is privately urging the US to launch strikes aimed at regime change in Iran. When Netanyahu asked Trump to hold back earlier this month, it was because he considered the planned attack too small. Netanyahu has previously encouraged Iranians to challenge their regime, as seen in his Fox News interview last year.
US President Donald Trump is considering various actions against Iran, ranging from limited symbolic strikes to full-scale regime change. Publicly, he has alternated between military threats and offers of fresh negotiations. While US allies warn of the risks in unseating Iran's leadership, many in Israel see potential security benefits.
By toppling the Tehran regime, Israel aims to eliminate the threat of Iran's ballistic missiles and its potential to acquire nuclear weapons. It would also weaken Iran's proxy militia, including Hezbollah, which possesses thousands of missiles and rockets in Lebanon, according to Israel's Alma research institute.
However, some Israeli lawmakers argue that a limited strike or a new deal with Iran could pose greater risks by leaving the regime intact. Moshe Tur-Paz, a member of the Yesh Atid opposition party, believes that dealing with 'total evil' requires a strong response. He asserts that Israel and the Western world should act more forcefully against Iran, as there is a consensus on the threat it poses.
Many believe that another conflict that fails to change the regime would not be worth the retaliation from Iran. During the 12-day war last year, when Israel and the US attacked Iran's nuclear and missile sites, Iran retaliated with hundreds of ballistic missiles, causing casualties and damage in Israeli cities like Tel Aviv.
The Iranian regime's current vulnerability, following the 12-day war and domestic protests, presents an opportunity for Israel. Asaf Cohen emphasizes that Iran is at its weakest and that many believe this is a now-or-never moment. Residents of Tel Aviv, still recovering from last June's missile strikes, are anticipating another conflict.
Young Israelis like Neria hope their leaders will seize this opportunity, even if it means enduring more attacks. Shani, another resident, expresses mixed feelings, acknowledging the Iranian people's desire for US help while hoping for everyone's safety. Israeli polls consistently show strong support for military action against Iran, even after the 12-day war.
The risks of regime change are significant. With no apparent fractures in the military and clerical alliance around Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and a fragmented opposition, it's unclear who would assume control if the government fell. A younger successor from the ruling elite might not be more flexible, and civil war would destabilize Iran and the region.
Israel's Prime Minister, facing elections, is eager for regime change in Iran as a political victory, despite the risks. Citrinowicz calls it a calculated gamble, as Netanyahu is willing to take the risk if the US commits fully. However, Trump's conditions for negotiations, including ending uranium enrichment and proxy support, are seen as red lines by the Iranian regime.
Israel's leadership opposes a deal, and analysts disagree on its feasibility. Cohen believes both Washington and Tehran want an agreement, but if one isn't reached soon, the US will strike. He argues that both Trump and Iran's Supreme Leader have flexible red lines, as seen in previous negotiations.
Citrinowicz counters that while Iran is rational and capable of compromise, it has its red lines. He warns that containing a war with Iran would be challenging, as Iranians would view it as a fight for their survival. There are indications that Trump might focus on Iran's nuclear program in negotiations, which could bring relief to the region but also anxiety for Israel.
Cohen suggests that compromises can be constructed on issues like enrichment to prevent new activities while avoiding explicit bans. He highlights the difference in approach between the US and Iran, with the US seeking quick results and Iran displaying great patience. As the situation unfolds, the world watches to see if a deal can be reached or if conflict is inevitable.
