What, and who after the Ayatollahs? Israel and US want regime change in Iran, but what comes after that may be just chaos and new problems

‘Make Iran Great Again’. The US President Donald Trump has hinted at regime change in a conflict-ridden Iran. The ‘regime change’ statement comes right after the US Air Force bombed the nuclear facilities of Iran.

On 23rd June 2025, Trump dropped a post on Truth Social in which he said that while it would not be right to use the term “regime change”, however, if the current regime is unable to make Iran great again, there could be a regime change.

“It’s not politically correct to use the term, “Regime Change”, but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a regime change??? MIGA!!!” Trump posted.

Besides Donald Trump, several others in the Republican Party are also drawn to the idea of a regime change in Iran to dethrone the Ayatollahs and establish a pro-US democratic establishment in Iran. Reports say that even several Democrats are in favour of toppling the Islamic theocratic regime and destroying their theocratic grip on power.

Interestingly, Trump’s regime change comments come just days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that regime change in Iran “could certainly be the result” of Israel’s operation there, since the Islamic regime is currently “very weak”.

So far, since the Israel-Iran conflict began, Trump has gone from saying that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is under the US’s radar and can be eliminated at America’s whim, to hinting at regime change. This comes even as the Vice President, JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth have repeatedly said on multiple occasions that the United States does not intend to bring about a regime change in Iran but only dismantle the Iranian nuclear program.

“We don’t want to achieve regime change. We want to achieve the end of the Iranian nuclear program. That’s what the president set us out to do,” JD Vance said during an interview.

Similarly, the US Secretary of State said, “What we are focused on is not the changing of the regime. … If [Iran] remains committed to becoming a nuclear power, it could imperil the survival of the regime. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.”

While speaking at a UNSC meeting on Threats to International Peace and Security on Sunday, US Ambassador to the UN, Dorothy Shea, defended US military action against nuclear facilities in Iran. She stated that the operation was launched to end a “longstanding but rapidly escalating source of global insecurity” and to help Israel in its right to self-defence per the UN Charter.

“To fulfill its core mission of maintaining international peace and security, this Council must call upon the Iranian regime to end its 47-year effort to eradicate the State of Israel, to terminate its drive for nuclear weapons, to stop targeting American citizens and interests, and to negotiate peace in good faith for the prosperity and security of the Iranian people and all other States in the region,” Shea added.

Both the United States and Israel view Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat to Israel; the Islamic regime is also seen as a destabilising force in the Middle East. This is not only due to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but also due to backing of proxy militias such as Hezbollah and Houthis, who often target Israel and have an anti-Western stance. Given the Iranian regime’s unwavering support for Palestine, which is at war with Israel ever since the Islamic terror group Hamas massacred Israeli civilians on 7th October 2923, Iran’s nuclear program indeed poses an existential threat to Israel.

However, the idea of toppling the Islamic regime despite it resonating with certain geopolitical objectives can be disastrous, going by the history of past cataclysmic attempts at bringing the ‘US-style’ democracy in Islamic countries with hostile ruling establishments. While President Trump now seems tempted by the idea of installing a pro-US ‘democratic’ regime in Iran, the aftermath of such an adventure is fraught with uncertainty as it may plunge Iran and the broader region into chaos instead of ushering in a functional, stable and non-Islamist democracy.

What will the fall of the Ayatollahs bring to Iran?

While the external intervention is most likely, an internal uprising or a combination of US-Israel orchestrated fall of the Ayatollahs will create a power vacuum in Iran. Although executing a regime change itself is not a cakewalk in a nation of over 85 million people with a complex socio-political landscape, if done, it could trigger chaos nearly impossible for the US to contain.

Iran is an ethnically diverse nation, with Persians, who are largely pro-Ayatollah, Azeris (Azerbaijanis), Kurds, and Balochs residing under the grip of the Islamic regime. While the Kurds initially supported the 1979 Islamic revolution, they have, over the years, drifted away and have been fighting the Islamic regime, which persecutes them. Even recently, Iran’s Kurdish groups, including armed outfits, called for an uprising against the Islamic regime.

“As long as this regime remains in power, the situation will only deteriorate. Therefore, the first and most important prerequisite for saving Iran’s citizens from this crisis, destruction, and darkness is to completely remove and end this regime,” said Iran’s oldest Kurdish party, the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI) on 13th June. Similar statements have been issued by other Kurdish parties, including the Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK).

If Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is killed and his regime toppled by the United States and Israel, it would unleash centrifugal forces, as various factions including the anti-Ayatollah secularists, those seeking restoration of pre-Islamic revolution Shah of Iran, ethnic separatists including the Kurds and Balochs, as well as the remnants of the Islamic regime’s loyalists, vying for power grab.

There is a high probability that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Iran’s powerful and Islamist institution with significant military and economic clout, might attempt to seize power, thus potentially turning Iran into an Islamist military dictatorship instead of what the US and Israel want, a pro-US democracy.

Israel’s rhetoric suggests that it wants Iran to get rid of the Ayatollah regime to not only avert the nuclear threat posed by Iran to Israel’s existence but also to free Iranians from the clutches of oppressive Islamists. However, the efforts to oust the Ayatollah might backfire as it may empower even harder-line Islamist and Israel-hating factions in the country. Moreover, it is also not unlikely that such a regime change would be seen by the Iranian populace as a Western ‘conspiracy’. In such a case, it won’t be surprising if Iranians rally around a more Islamist, violent, anti-Western leadership, which would essentially work towards accelerating Iran’s nuclear program rather than curbing it. If this happens, Israel would come back to exactly where it started from—facing an existential threat.

Besides civil war and internal chaos, proxy wars can turn Iran into a battleground. Iran’s strategic location and its resources undoubtedly make it a prize for global powers, especially those not aligned with the United States. The power vacuum created by the Ayatollah’s ouster could invite meddling from Russia, China and other regional players, including ‘wannabe caliphate’ Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, with each backing rival factions clashing internally. Such a situation will essentially turn Iran into a battleground for proxy wars and descend the Middle East into chaos, with its spillover exacerbating conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, where Iran has significant influence.

Iraq and Libya: The US meddling in internal affairs and pulling off a regime change comes at a detrimental cost

Successful or not, the US has a legacy of orchestrating regime change in countries that do not align with its interests. However, the US-led interventions in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 sever as cautionary tales. The removal of dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq destroyed the state’s institutional framework, created a power vacuum, gave rise to sectarian violence, Islamic terrorism and the deadliest Islamic terror group ISIS. While the conflict ended in 2011 and America installed a transitional government, from 2013 to 2017, Iraq grappled with another war with the rise and defeat of the Islamic State.

America’s unjustified invasion of Iraq and the regime change adventure devastated the country, destroyed its economy, rendered it politically unstable, and resulted in numerous deaths. Even after more than 20 years of the US invasion, Iraq is yet to return to complete normalcy as post-war conflicts at a lower scale continue. Ironically, the US-orchestrated fall of Iraq and its dictator Saddam Hussein ultimately benefited Iran, which expanded its influence and strategic depth by creating a ‘Shia Crescent’.

Not to forget, Saddam Hussein was overthrown by the US over the apprehension that he possessed weapons of mass destruction; however, it eventually turned out, the leader of the Ba’athist regime possessed no such weapons. While Iraq was destroyed, Iran gained influence, and America ultimately admitted that its Iraq invasion was a “mistake”.

Similarly, Libya has yet to recover from the Western-backed intervention that ended in the brutal lynching of Gaddafi. In Libya, however, the regime change was orchestrated from within and backed from abroad. In 2011, a civil war began in Libya during what is known as the Arab Spring, which was a series of pro-democracy protests, uprisings and rebellions in many parts of the Arab world in the 2010s. In Libya as well, protests erupted against dictator Muammar Gaddafi, who attempted to crush the protests with violence. To protect the protesting civilians from the Gaddafi regime, the US military established a no-fly zone and suppressed Libyan air defences, following which NATO intervened militarily and on 20th October 2011, Gaddafi was killed.

However, a government acceptable to the Libyan people was never established; in fact, the country descended into further political instability and violence. Since March 2022, two factions, the internationally recognised Government of National Unity (GNU) and the Government of National Stability (GNS), have been fighting to seize control and human rights violations continue to date. Libya still faces economic challenges, political instability, and security threats.

In both cases, the US and its allies severely underestimated the complexity of post-regime governance. While the immediate real or perceived threat was eliminated, these regime changes gave rise to new and even more dangerous problems, which largely affected the local populace while the US and its allies conveniently backed off.

Israel and the US have a plan neither for Iranian regime change nor for handling a subsequent crisis

Meanwhile, Iran, with its larger population, stronger institutions and significant regional influence, poses an even more daunting challenge to the US and Israel. So far, Iran, despite suffering losses and attacks on its nuclear facilities, has retaliated against Israel, suggesting that it is not going to back off now, at least, not until Khamenei holds power and popular support.

While the Israeli Prime Minister talks about toppling the Khamenei-led Islamic regime, he clearly lacks an action plan, or perhaps, Netanyahu is not much concerned about what happens after the collapse of the anti-Israel Islamic regime and dismantling of the West Asian nation’s nuclear program. Or, Israel and the US are deliberately not revealing much about their plans.

So far, neither Trump nor Netanyahu has articulated a clear vision for Iran’s future if they manage to pull off a regime change there. Their focus appears to be only on weakening the Islamic Republic’s leadership and crushing its nuclear program. With no vision to address the practicalities of how a post-Khamenei Iran would be stabilised in an already volatile region, the US and Israel seem to be playing with fire with their regime change designs. The Middle East is already facing conflicts in Gaza, Yemen and Lebanon; a destabilised Iran would exacerbate these crises, disrupt oil markets, trigger refugee flows and might give rise to another ISIS-like armed Jihadist terror group.

In Iran, there is already a prevailing sentiment that the country should build and keep nuclear weapons. Since 1980s, the Ayatollahs have maintained control through a blend of repression, patronage, and Islamist appeal. Even if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is eliminated or forced to flee Iran, the Islamists might regroup and exploit nationalist fervour to reject foreign intervention and also exploit the Muslim hatred for Israel. While removing Khamenei will create a power vacuum in Lebanon, Syria and Palestine, where Iran-backed terror outfits are in a strong position, it will come with dire consequences for the Middle East. Hamas, Hezbollah and other Iran-backed Islamic terror outfits would increase their terrorist activities, especially against Israel.

Besides the human cost, economic uncertainty and geopolitical unrest, the lives of Iranian people will be destroyed if a regime change attempt is carried out in Iran without a viable action plan. While there is a significant anti-Islamist and pro-democracy undercurrent in Iran, however, none is strong enough to lend support to Israel. It is also pertinent to understand that if Khamenei is overthrown, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would most likely grab power. In a nutshell, the US and Israel will either see the rise of less or more, but Islamic hardliners and not pro-democracy, essentially, and certainly not pro-US leadership, ruling Iran. While speculations are rife that the US would want to bring exiled Iranian crown prince Reza Pahlavi back to rule the West Asian nation, however, he may not get acceptance from the Iranian people as they would see him as America’s puppet.

Conclusion

The US and Iran want to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; they should focus on targeted strategies in this direction only. They should prioritise limited military action against nuclear facilities, opt for sanctions and diplomacy over the reckless pursuit of regime change without a plan that not only would address Israel’s concerns but also ensure peace and stability in Iran. The United States and Israel should avoid igniting a fire that they cannot contain, as doing so could devastate Iran, give rise to Islamic extremists, imperil the lives of Iranians and destabilise the region. While geopolitical experts opine that a regime change in Iran is unlikely, this has been a year of everything unexpected taking shape of reality. Unstable regions give rise to unexpected powers, and further unexpected problems.

News