The intention of instigating regime change in Iran was a prominent objective for the United States and Israel when they engaged in conflict with Iran—a notion that resonated with certain Iranians as well. However, this aim now seems distant and unattainable.
Following the death of Iran’s former leader Ali Khamenei, caused by the combined efforts of the US and Israel, then-President Donald Trump encouraged the Iranian people to “seize control” of their nation.
Trump stated, “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take,” after the initial US and Israeli air strikes targeted Iran in late February. Read more about the events here..
This appeal was also supported by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, underscoring that regime change was a fundamental goal of their coordinated military efforts, aligning with Netanyahu’s long-cherished aspirations.
Four months on, the United States has withdrawn from the conflict, leaving a significant toll: thousands of lives lost, economic disruptions worldwide, a depletion of US arms—yet the Iranian regime remains unscathed.
Rather than weakening Iran’s political structure, experts say the joint agreement signed with the US last week has instead emboldened and strengthened it.
US leaders, including Trump and his defence chief Pete Hegseth, insist there has been regime change, pointing to the killing of Khamenei and top Iranian security and political officials.
Trump ‘feels he was fooled’
But that doesn’t constitute regime change, Middle East analyst Amin Saikal says, partly because Khamenei was succeeded by his son Mojtaba.
Saikal says Trump may have felt later that he was being “played” by Netanyahu over regime change.
“Trump personally has never really said that he is very much in favour of regime change. In fact, he has said a few times that regime change does not really work,” he told SBS News.
“I think Trump feels that he was fooled by Netanyahu.”
Charles Miller, a senior lecturer in politics and international relations at the Australian National University, says the US side may have believed they could replicate the political change it managed in Venezuela.
“I think it became quite clear not too long into the war that this attempt to basically … swap out the leadership for one that would be more cooperative with the United States and Israel, wasn’t going to work,” he said.
Dara Conduit, a political science lecturer at the University of Melbourne, says regime change was never a main goal of Trump’s, pointing to his statements during the January protests that killed thousands, that “help was on its way”.
“And that help wasn’t forthcoming, and many Iranians were massacred in the streets,” she told SBS News.
“But [regime change] is not something that’s been particularly well planned, and I don’t think it’s something that Donald Trump really is deeply wedded to.”
Was regime change ever possible?
Experts say the ‘decapitation’ strategy — killing the chief at the top — is unlikely to effect regime change in a political system like Iran’s, where power is decentralised in what is called a ‘mosaic structure’. Each region in Iran is apparently controlled independently by an arm of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The regime may not have majority public support, but it does control many aspects of state power, including the IRGC, the volunteer Basij militia, the network of mosques, and various national committees.
“The regime is built to survive,” Saikal says.
And it’s built as tough as possible to withstand a “crack” from the US.
“They designed the Iranian military to basically be as robust as possible to an attempted invasion by the United States that would change the region, so that meant basically designing these long-range missiles and later designing drones, dispersing and hardening their facilities, building a very large army and Revolutionary Guards Corps, such that it would be very difficult for the United States to invade Iran.”
Miller adds that, without a ground operation or a collaborator on the inside, regime change was always unlikely.
Regime ‘far more emboldened’
Far from abolishing the regime, the memorandum of understanding signed last week — along with reaffirming the Strait of Hormuz under the control of Iran, and a US$300 billion ($431 billion) reconstruction fund — also makes it clear that both sides must “refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs”, such as attempting regime change.
Conduit says Iran has benefited from the deal more than it had during previous rounds of nuclear talks, where sanctions relief was the main incentive.
“It’s actually quite remarkable how much the dial has, I guess, shifted in the regime’s favour. It has certainly come out in a much stronger position than it went in,” she said.
Saikal said the US and Israel underestimated the resilience and capability of the regime.
“The regime is far more emboldened than it was,” he told SBS News.
It’s unclear whether the US will try again for regime change. But it’s unlikely to happen in the near future.
“There are a lot of people in the American political establishment and the Israeli political establishment that believe there is unfinished business here,” Conduit said.
“So I wouldn’t be surprised if it does escalate again at some point, I mean, with the hope that the US and Israel has learned its lessons from this conflict that the Iranian regime won’t be easily overpowered.”
