Iran: What are the chances for regime change? – DW – 06/23/2025

The longer Israel's attack on Iran goes on, the greater the speculation about the possibility of overthrowing the government in Tehran. But regime change has historically had disastrous consequences in the region.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly told the US broadcaster Fox News on Sunday that regime change in Iran "could certainly be the result" of Israel's operation there, because, he said, the Iranian government was "very weak."
US President Donald Trump has meanwhile sent out contradictory signals. "We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding," he wrote on his personal social network, Truth Social on June 17, singling out Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now."
In the night between Saturday and Sunday, the US flew strikes against Iran's three main nuclear sites, and Trump has threatened more attacks should Tehran not return to the negotiation table.
"There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran," the US president said Saturday, adding that the US "will go for other targets" should that not be the case. On Sunday, Trump again posted on Truth Social, saying: "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!!!"
The longer the conflict with Iran goes on, the more tempting it might appear to Israel and the United States to get rid not just of the Iranian nuclear program, but of the Islamic Republic as well.
"It's extremely doubtful that it would be possible to bring about a regime change like that from the outside, with the push of a button," said Eckart Woertz, the head of the German Institute of Global and Area Studies in Hamburg. "If it did come to that, whether things would then go in the right direction is a whole other question."
Foreign-imposed "regime change" is a highly controversial concept. Under international law, it is a clear violation of the sovereignty of the affected state. Often, the move is not democratically legitimized, and it frequently leads to a power vacuum or violence and instability.
Newly installed governments often find themselves unable to cope with the challenge of resolving the country's problems, and this results in further crises and conflicts.
That's what happened in Afghanistan. After the terrorist attacks on New York on September 11, 2001, NATO invoked the mutual defense guarantee contained in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty for the first and (so far) only time. A Western military alliance led by the United States resolved to topple Afghanistan's Islamist Taliban regime, and fight the terrorist organization al-Qaeda.
Initially, the operation was quite successful, and by the end of 2001 the Taliban had been driven out of Kabul. But various parties to the alliance disagreed on a number of things, including how military, political and development aid should cooperate.
And so, for 20 years, the security situation remained extremely precarious. The country was devastated by attacks as the Taliban launched repeated counteroffensives. Between 2001 and 2021, around 3,600 Western soldiers and almost 50,000 Afghan civilians were killed. The Afghanistan mission cost a total of almost $1 billion (€868 million).
After the chaotic withdrawal of the US and its allies in the summer of 2021, the Taliban returned to power. Since then, they have rolled back almost all the progress made over the past 20 years. Afghanistan is isolated and desperately poor, with 23 million people dependent on humanitarian aid.
The US once supplies weapons to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was in power for more than two decades. In 2003, however, it decided to overthrow Hussein with help of a "coalition of the willing," but without a mandate from the UN Security Council. Washington justified the decision with the assertion that Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda and was in possession of weapons of mass destruction — claims later proven to be false.
"Saddam Hussein was overthrown not because he possessed weapons of mass destruction, but because he did not possess them," said Woertz. And, at the time, Iran took note.
Once Hussein had been toppled, the Americans installed a transitional government, which was later heavily criticized for mismanagement and lack of knowledge of the country.
Existing enmities between Iraq's different religious groups deteriorated into a situation akin to civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Deadly attacks were an almost daily occurrence. Soldiers discharged from the Iraqi army started fighting the US troops who had previously toppled Hussein.
Twenty years after the American invasion and the attempted regime change in Iraq, the situation has improved. Violence has died down, and the next round of parliamentary elections is due to take place in November. Nonetheless, Iraq remains a country in the process of change.
Libya is also still suffering the consequences of an attempted regime change, which came from within and was flanked from abroad. In the wake of the Arab Spring, a civil war began in 2011 with protests against the rule of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi. When Gadhafi attempted to put down the uprisings with bloodshed, NATO intervened militarily in the form of a no-fly zone to protect the civilian population. The regime held on for a few months. Then on October 20, 2011, Gadhafi was killed.
But a government acceptable to the entire country was never established. Instead, there have been years of further conflict between rival militias. The state has virtually disintegrated, with two different governments fighting for control since March 2022. The human rights situation remains extremely precarious.
Aside from these cautionary examples from recent history, Woertz sees another problem: Ultimately, ground force would be required to force a change of government in Iran.
"I don't see a massively strong rebel movement within Iran that could topple the current regime," he said.
"While there was a successful regime change in Germany once, at the end of World War II, that required a ground invasion," said Woertz. "And then you need a transition backed by local people. It helps if there is a common external enemy — like the Soviet bloc after 1945 — which glosses over the differences. But regime change has never happened with aerial bombardment alone, and I don't think Iran will be an exception now."

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Int'l Business Times

23 minutes ago

• Int'l Business Times

Republican Lawmaker Insisting Trump Admin is Raising Global Conflict 'In Order to Lower It' Baffles Users: 'War is Peace Now'

A Republican lawmaker is facing mockery online after insisting that the Trump administration is raising global conflict "in order to lower it" in defense of President Donald Trump's strikes on Iran. During an appearance on Fox Business Monday morning, North Carolina Rep. Pat Harrigan defended Trump's decision to order three strikes on Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday while also discouraging the country from attacking in retaliation. "We're trying to lower the temperature of global conflict while simultaneously kind of raising it here in order to lower it," he said. However, the lawmaker's reasoning baffled users, leading to backlash online as several people said his assertion "makes zero sense." "War is peace now!!" one user mocked. Another wrote, "Just a silly little game of chicken with WW3 guys nothing to worry about." One user created their own example to show why they thought Harrigan's statement was ironic: "It's going to be 102 degrees F with high humidity where I live today. I guess I'll turn the heat on to cool off." "Freedom is slavery," another user jeered, while others asked the lawmaker to "stop speaking in riddles." Trump's strikes on Iran have been met with bipartisan backlash as several lawmakers expressed concern at the president dragging the U.S. into another foreign war. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie criticized Trump's decision Sunday, saying the president "declared so much War on me today it should require an Act of Congress," referring to a resolution he launched last week that would limit war powers. Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene also expressed her disagreement with Trump's decision, declaring "these foreign wars have cost Americans TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of dollars" in a Sunday X post. Meanwhile, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared that the bombings were "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment" in a Sunday post. Although Greene disapproved of Trump's decision, she slammed AOC for this proposal, calling her a "pathetic little hypocrite." Originally published on Latin Times

Int'l Business Times

23 minutes ago

• Int'l Business Times

AOC Ridicules Hegseth After Being Congratulated for 'Not a Single Leak' From Iran Bombing: 'Not a Vote of Confidence'

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mocked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after a conservative political pundit congratulated him for managing the U.S. attack on Iran without any leaks. The New York representative took to X (formerly Twitter) to respond to conservative columnist amd Newsmax host Todd Starnes who had commended Hegseth on the same platform earlier. "Not a single leak. Well done, @SecDef," Starnes wrote, appearing to refer to the Signalgate scandal from earlier this year after it was revealed that a journalist was added to a private Signal chat of Trump officials discussing strikes on Yemen. "This is like applauding a grown man for being able to wipe their behind. Not exactly a vote of confidence," AOC responded. Social media users quickly took to the replies of Ocasio-Cortez's post to further ridicule Hegseth, with some expressing frustrations at the fact that the Trump administration had become involved in another foreign war. "The cowardice displayed here, by not seeking the Congress' declaration of war, is astounding," said one. "All day I've been seeing house MAGA applauding @SecDef for not leaking out anything about the bombings. I WANT TO KNOW why is this deemed normal? We shouldn't have to be praising a grown man let alone the @SecDef for not drunk texting military secrets," said another. "Like why are we congratulating someone who's supposed to be doing their jobs," another user wrote. President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. had successfully bombed three Iranian nuclear sites in a national address delivered from the White House on Saturday evening. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a close ally to AOC, also commented on the attack, drawing parallels between this attack to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. "No weapons of mass destruction were ever found," Sanders said, referencing the Iraq invasion. "That war was based on a lie. A lie that cost us 4,500 young Americans, 32,000 wounded and trillions of dollars." "We cannot let history repeat itself," he continued. Originally published on Latin Times

DW

42 minutes ago

• DW

US attack on Iran: Germany in diplomatic no man's land – DW – 06/23/2025

Chancellor Friedrich Merz has defended the US attacks on Iran. Germany had not been informed in advance. Just over 35 hours after the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz addressed the issue in front of cameras for the first time. Merz spoke on Monday at an event organized by the Federation of German Industries (BDI) in Berlin, an engagement that had been scheduled for some time. The event's title was "New Times, New Answers," and Merz uttered a sentence that hardly any chancellor would have said until recently: "There is no reason for us, nor for me personally, to criticize what Israel started a week ago. Nor is there any reason to criticize what America did last weekend. It is not without risk. But leaving things as they were was not an option either." In other words, not only Israel, but also the US is now doing the "dirty work" in the fight against Iran. Merz used this phrase last week at the G7 summit in Canada to describe and praise the Israeli attacks. Not everybody in Germany liked this harsh choice of words. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The German government spent most of Sunday trying to assess the new situation. Merz spoke on the phone with French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Afterward, the three issued a statement saying: "Our goal remains to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon." There was no criticism of the US attack. The statement continued: "We urge Iran not to take any further actions that could destabilize the region." On Sunday morning, Merz convened a meeting of the security cabinet, which includes the most important ministers in the government. Germany does not yet have a national security council, but the government wants to introduce one soon. It quickly became clear that Germany had only been informed by the US about the planned attacks after the bombs had already been dropped. This was a repeat of what happened more than a week ago when the Israelis attacked the Iranian nuclear facilities. At that time, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul wasn't woken up by his Israeli counterpart, Gideon Saar in Cairo. It was the middle of the night, again after the attacks had already begun. Wadephul, who had planned to travel to the Middle East to make numerous visits in an effort to promote a peaceful solution, then informed Merz, who in turn spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Wadephul was then forced to cancel his planned visit to Israel. A similar sequence of events also unfolded after the US attack on Iran. On Friday, Wadephul met with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Geneva, together with his colleagues from France and the UK, in an attempt to reach a negotiated solution, but without success. Then, on Saturday night, the US intervened in the war. On Sunday after the US attack, German ministers appeared on television to explain to citizens where Germany stands on this issue and what the government can do. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, for example, attempted late in the evening to provide some context on public broadcaster when he said: "It is never good when a confrontation escalates militarily and continues. That in itself cannot be good news, because it reveals and demonstrates that the world order of peace is currently under pressure. And that is true everywhere." But, according to the defense minister, if Iran had indeed progressed so far with its nuclear program that it posed an immediate threat, then "the destruction of the facilities for manufacturing nuclear weapons is certainly not bad news for stability and security in the region and for Israel." Foreign Minister Wadephul expressed similar views in several interviews. He stated that Iran had crossed a "red line" and must now be prepared to return to negotiations. Also on Monday morning, the head of the Chancellery, Thorsten Frei, invited all the leaders of the parliamentary groups in the Bundestag to discuss the new situation in the Middle East. When asked whether the US attack was justified under international law, Frei said: "In my view, we do not yet have all the information that would allow us to make a definitive assessment under international law." However, the question of international law was also on the minds of other German politicians on Monday. Agnieszka Brugger, defense expert for the Green Party, wrote on the X platform: "I find the blind allegiance to Donald Trump that leading CDU/CSU [conservative bloc] members of parliament are now demonstrating to be naive and dangerous. It is also a complete departure from international law. This could very soon be met with harsh reality." Representatives of the ruling center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) also expressed concerns. SPD member of parliament Isabel Cademartori wrote on X: "A world in which countries that do not possess nuclear weapons can be attacked at any time by those that do, without any legitimacy under international law, simply because they can, is not a safe world. For anyone."While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter, Berlin Briefing.