Israel's Perilous Tightrope

Navigating the Illusions of Military Solutions in Iran.

[A projectile hits buildings as the Israeli Iron Dome air defense system fires to intercept missiles over Tel Aviv, Israel, on Friday, June 13. Leo Correa/AP]

WASHINGTON, DC - The early morning hours of June 13, 2025, marked a dramatic escalation in the long-simmering conflict between Israel and Iran. A series of coordinated and audacious offensive attacks, reportedly the largest since the Iran-Iraq war, saw Israeli jets streak across the Iranian sky, targeting the heart of the Islamic Republic's nuclear and military infrastructure. The stated objective, as articulated by Israeli leadership, was unequivocal: to neutralize the existential threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. However, beneath this veneer of decisive action lies a far more complex and perilous reality. Israel is not merely conducting a military operation; it is walking a razor-thin tightrope, precariously balanced between two strategic gambles with monumental and potentially catastrophic consequences: the illusion of eliminating Iran's nuclear program through force and the high-stakes bet on instigating regime change in Tehran.

The latest series of Israeli attacks, which have reportedly targeted key nuclear facilities in Natanz and Isfahan, as well as military command centers and scientific personnel, represent a significant departure from the long-standing "shadow war" of covert operations and sabotage that has defined the Iran-Israel conflict for decades. This bold move into overt, large-scale military engagement signals a sense of urgency and a belief within the Israeli security establishment that the window to act is rapidly closing. Yet, a dispassionate analysis of the situation reveals that both of Israel's potential strategic endgames are fraught with immense risk and a high probability of failure, potentially leading to a more entrenched and dangerous adversary.

The Futile Quest to Bomb Away Nuclear Knowledge

The primary and most publicly articulated goal of the Israeli offensive is the complete and permanent dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program. For years, Israeli leaders have warned that a nuclear-armed Iran would not only pose a direct threat to Israel's existence but would also trigger a destabilizing nuclear arms race across the Middle East. From this perspective, the recent attacks are a desperate, last-ditch effort to prevent a nightmare scenario from unfolding.

However, the consensus among a wide range of nuclear experts and military analysts is that while these attacks may succeed in hindering Iran's nuclear progress, they will not eliminate it. The Iranian nuclear program is no longer a centralized, easily targeted enterprise. It is a dispersed and hardened network of facilities, many of which are buried deep underground, beyond the reach of conventional ordnance. The Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, for instance, is built into a mountain, making it exceptionally resilient to aerial bombardment.

Even if Israel were to succeed in destroying every known nuclear facility, the intellectual capital and technical expertise amassed by Iranian scientists over decades cannot be erased by airstrikes. Iran possesses the indigenous knowledge to rebuild its program, and historical precedent suggests that it will do so with even greater determination and secrecy. The Stuxnet virus in 2010 and a series of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists in the past, while causing temporary setbacks, ultimately failed to halt the program's advance. In fact, they arguably provided Tehran with the political justification to accelerate its nuclear activities, moving from low-enriched uranium to higher levels of enrichment that bring it perilously close to weapons-grade material.

The current Israeli offensive is likely to have the same effect, only on a much larger scale. By launching a direct and devastating military assault, Israel has provided the hardliners in Tehran with the ultimate propaganda victory. The narrative of a victimized Iran, under attack from an aggressive and expansionist Zionist entity, will be a powerful tool to rally public support and justify a more overt and rapid push towards a nuclear deterrent. The international community, while concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions, is also wary of a major regional conflagration. The Israeli attacks, conducted without broad international consensus, risk isolating Israel and making it more difficult to build a global coalition to pressure Iran through diplomatic and economic means.

In essence, the strategy of eliminating the Iranian nuclear program through military force is a Sisyphean task. Israel may roll the boulder of Iran's nuclear progress up the hill, but it is destined to roll back down, likely with greater momentum and a more determined push from Tehran. The attacks may buy Israel a few months, or even a few years, of breathing room, but they will not provide a permanent solution. Instead, they are more likely to create a more determined and secretive nuclear adversary, one that is no longer bound by the constraints of international agreements it has now seen so flagrantly disregarded.

The Regime Change Gamble: A Roll of the Dice on a Disenchanted Populace

If the elimination of the nuclear program is a strategic illusion, then the second, more clandestine, objective of the Israeli attacks – instigating regime change in Tehran – is a high-stakes gamble of epic proportions. This strategy is predicated on the assumption that the clerical leadership in Iran is deeply unpopular and that the Iranian people are a powder keg of dissent, waiting for an external spark to ignite a revolution.

There is certainly evidence to support the notion of widespread discontent within Iran. The country has been rocked by successive waves of protests in recent years, fueled by a toxic mix of economic hardship, social repression, and political disenfranchisement. Soaring inflation, rampant unemployment, and a currency in freefall have pushed millions of Iranians into poverty and despair. The brutal crackdown on the "Woman, Life, Freedom" movement, sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini in the custody of the morality police, exposed the deep chasm between a youthful, modernizing society and an aging, dogmatic regime.

The hope within some circles in Tel Aviv is that the Israeli attacks will act as a catalyst, demonstrating the regime's weakness and emboldening the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow their oppressors. The thinking is that a population already simmering with resentment will see the government's inability to protect its most sensitive sites as the final proof of its incompetence and illegitimacy.

However, this is a dangerously simplistic reading of a complex and proud nation. The history of foreign intervention in Iran is a long and bitter one, and nationalism is a potent force that has often transcended political and ideological divides. While many Iranians may despise their current rulers, they are also fiercely patriotic and may view the Israeli attacks not as a liberation, but as a violation of their national sovereignty. In times of national crisis, there is a strong tendency for populations to rally around the flag, even if they have deep grievances with their government.

The Iranian regime is acutely aware of this dynamic and will undoubtedly exploit it to its fullest advantage. State media will portray the conflict as a holy war against a foreign aggressor, and the images of destruction and civilian casualties will be used to stoke nationalist fervor and deflect attention from the government's own failings. The risk for Israel is that its attacks, intended to weaken the regime, could inadvertently strengthen its grip on power by providing it with a common enemy and a pretext for an even more brutal crackdown on internal dissent.

The initial reports from Iran following the June 2025 attacks are a mixed bag, reflecting this inherent contradiction. There have been accounts of anti-government slogans being shouted from rooftops in Tehran, a sign that the flames of dissent have not been extinguished. However, there have also been large, state-organized rallies where chants of "Death to Israel" have echoed through the streets. Which of these sentiments will ultimately prevail is the billion-dollar question upon which the success or failure of Israel's regime change strategy hinges.

The Unanswered Question: Who Would Lead a New Iran?

Even if, against all odds, the Israeli attacks were to trigger a popular uprising that successfully toppled the Islamic Republic, a terrifyingly large question mark hangs over the future of Iran: who would take the reins of power? A successful revolution is not merely about overthrowing an old order; it is about building a new one. And in the case of Iran, the landscape of a viable and unified opposition is barren.

For decades, the clerical regime has systematically and ruthlessly crushed any and all forms of organized opposition. Political parties have been banned, civil society has been strangled, and a vast and pervasive security apparatus, led by the formidable Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has ensured that no credible alternative to the current system can emerge.

The Iranian opposition that exists today is a fragmented and fractious collection of individuals and groups, many of whom are in exile and have little to no organized presence on the ground in Iran. Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah, has a degree of name recognition and has called for a secular, democratic Iran. However, his association with a deposed and often brutal monarchy makes him a divisive figure for many Iranians. Other opposition groups, such as the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), are widely viewed as a cult-like organization with a history of violence and collaboration with foreign powers, rendering them illegitimate in the eyes of most Iranians.

Without a charismatic and unifying leader, or a well-organized and credible opposition movement to step into the breach, the collapse of the current regime could easily descend into chaos and civil war. Iran is a multi-ethnic and multi-sectarian country, and the iron fist of the Islamic Republic has, for all its brutality, held these centrifugal forces in check.The removal of that centralizing authority could unleash a torrent of ethnic and sectarian conflict, creating a power vacuum that could be filled by a myriad of warlords, militias, and extremist groups.

The prospect of a failed state on its eastern border, awash with weapons and torn apart by internal conflict, is a nightmare scenario for the entire region, and indeed for the world. The geopolitical shockwaves of such a collapse would be felt far and wide, with the potential for a massive refugee crisis, the disruption of global energy markets, and the creation of a new breeding ground for terrorism.

A Perilous Path with No Easy Answers

Israel's latest offensive against Iran is a testament to its deep-seated and legitimate security concerns. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic, with its long history of hostility towards the Jewish state, is a threat that no Israeli leader can afford to ignore. However, the path that Israel has chosen is a perilous one, fraught with the risk of unintended and potentially catastrophic consequences.

The belief that Iran's nuclear program can be eliminated through military force is a dangerous illusion. The attacks may cause delays and disruptions, but they will not erase the knowledge and the determination that fuels the program. On the contrary, they are more likely to create a more determined and secretive nuclear adversary, one that is no longer constrained by international norms.

The gamble on regime change is equally, if not more, precarious. While the Iranian people are undoubtedly suffering under a repressive and incompetent regime, there is no guarantee that they will rise up in response to foreign bombs. The more likely outcome is a nationalist backlash that will strengthen the hand of the hardliners and make any future prospects for a more moderate and democratic Iran even more remote.

And even in the unlikely event of a successful revolution, the absence of a viable and unified opposition raises the terrifying specter of a power vacuum and a descent into chaos and civil war.

Israel finds itself in an unenviable position, caught between a rock and a hard place. The status quo is untenable, but the path it has chosen is fraught with peril. The tightrope it is walking is a long and treacherous one, and a single misstep could have devastating consequences, not only for Israel and Iran but for the entire Middle East and beyond. The international community must redouble its efforts to find a diplomatic solution to this crisis, one that addresses both Israel's legitimate security concerns and Iran's right to a peaceful nuclear program under robust international oversight. The alternative is a continued and escalating cycle of violence that could all too easily spiral into a full-blown regional war, a war in which there would be no winners, only losers.

---

This article is part of the Polistratics | Global Foreign Policy Center collaboration program.

---