The US strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites on 22 June marked the beginning of what many have long feared: direct US involvement in Israel’s escalating aggression against Iran.
While President Donald Trump has insisted that the strikes are limited and that his administration is not seeking regime change, the region’s history suggests otherwise.
Israel has repeatedly drawn the US into Middle East conflicts through misleading intelligence – first in Iraq, and now in Iran.
Given this precedent and Iran’s warning of “everlasting consequences”, it is unlikely that US involvement will end here. Instead, it risks aligning with Israel’s longstanding objective: the collapse of the Islamic Republic.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already hinted that Israel’s military actions could lead to the removal of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on
Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
The US may publicly deny its intent, but historically it often ends up supporting or fulfilling Israel’s strategic ambitions – including direct military engagement with Iran, which it had previously ruled out.
Indeed, the US strikes triggered further escalation, with Iran retaliating on 23 June by launching what were widely described as “symbolic” missile attacks on US installations, including the al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar and sites in Iraq.
Scholars have long warned that the push for regime change in Iran rests on a dangerous and ill-informed strategy
However, if the confrontation intensifies, Washington could still seize the opportunity to pursue what some have called an “ultimate solution”: the removal of the regime in the name of regional stability.
Although Trump announced a ceasefire with Iran on Monday evening, which could yet collapse, the underlying tensions remain unresolved, and the broader strategy behind the strikes remains unchanged.
There remains a prevailing assumption, especially among Israeli and US lawmakers, that regime change in Iran would bring stability to the region.
Scholars such as Vali Nasr, however, have long warned that this idea rests on a dangerous and ill-informed strategy.
It also raises a deeper question, often overlooked in policy circles: would regime change actually dismantle the ideological system that sustains the Islamic Republic?
Ideological continuity
It is a grave misunderstanding to assume that the political and ideological system in Iran would unravel with the removal of Khamenei.
The ideological foundation of the Iranian revolution is deeply intertwined with the concept of wilayat al-faqih, a theological principle that underpins the Islamic Republic.
The Iranian people will never forgive or forget US-Israeli attacks
Read More »
This centuries-old doctrine within Twelver Shia Islam grants senior jurists a guardianship role during the occultation of the twelfth Shia Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi.
Under the leadership of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the 1979 revolution introduced wilayat al-faqih into the political sphere – an idea that had been confined mainly to religious scholarship.
While there is disagreement among Shia scholars about the extent of the jurist’s political role – Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Najaf, Iraq, for example, does not endorse its political application – there is general consensus that Shias should emulate the most senior jurist, marja al-taqlid, for religious and spiritual guidance in the absence of the Imam.
While there are several possible successors to Khamenei, the next leader will almost certainly emerge from the Qom Seminary – the foremost Shia centre of learning in Iran, which continues to promote Khomeini’s vision, including his interpretation of wilayat al-faqih.
In other words, removing Khamenei would be unlikely to change the system.
The ideological basis of the Iranian regime is not dependent on one leader. It is institutionally embedded in Iranian Shia Islam and will continue to reproduce the revolutionary doctrine at the heart of the state.
Transnational strength
Iran’s global soft power is often profoundly underestimated. While most states have diasporic communities, Iran is unique in its ability to command transnational ideological loyalty.
The impact of the 1979 revolution extended far beyond Iran’s borders and its Shia population.
It was a transformative moment in global politics, especially for Muslims – and above all, for Shia Muslim communities. The revolution carried deep theological and philosophical significance, especially regarding the doctrine of wilayat al-faqih.
While many Twelver Shia Muslims reject Khomeini’s political interpretation of this doctrine, others maintain a strong ideological commitment to the revolution.
This allegiance is not limited to Iran: Shia communities in Pakistan, Lebanon, India, Iraq and beyond continue to express solidarity with the Islamic Republic.
In diasporic settings, particularly in Europe and North America, support for the revolution is not limited to Iranian nationals. This sets Iran apart from other Muslim-majority countries.
For example, while Sunni Muslims may feel a spiritual connection to Mecca and Medina, or even to the Wahhabi tradition, few would defend the Saudi regime.
By contrast, admiration for the Islamic revolution and its institutions can be found among various ethnicities within Shia diasporic communities – grounded not in national loyalty, but in ideological and spiritual solidarity.
If the regime were toppled by external force, that ideological support for the Islamic Republic would likely deepen. Any externally imposed replacement would face widespread rejection from Shia communities worldwide.
Global network
Iran has cultivated a vast global patronage network that now spans six continents.
From Buenos Aires to Jakarta, from Africa to Europe, from London to New York, these networks maintain connections with followers of Khamenei.
Shia communities may face disruption, but the ideological ties that bind them to Iran would remain intact
They offer not only spiritual guidance, but also practical advice on daily matters. Even in the event of regime removal, these networks would not simply vanish.
Shia communities may face disruption, but the ideological and institutional links would remain intact and could help the regime’s global support base stay connected, sustain solidarity, and potentially aid a future ideological resurgence.
The essential question remains: what would regime change actually achieve? It is unlikely to weaken the regime’s ideological support base, either domestically or globally.
If that is the case, then whose interests would such a change actually serve, apart from Netanyahu’s expansionist ambitions and those of Israel’s far-right government?
After US attack, Iran could reconsider its nuclear strategy
Seyed Hossein Mousavian
Read More »
There are serious grievances within Iranian society, particularly among secular and reformist voices.
Economic hardship, political repression and restrictions on civil liberties have generated widespread frustration. These realities must not be dismissed.
But externally imposed regime change has never worked in the Middle East, and Iran is unlikely to be the exception. On the contrary, such a move would almost certainly trigger chaos with far-reaching consequences.
The real question now is not whether Iran’s system can endure external pressure – but how far the US and its allies would prioritise Israel’s agenda, even at the risk of extending a conflict that would ultimately undermine their own regional interests.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
