Israel's attacks on Iran hint at bigger goal

By
Crispian Balmer, Michael Martina
and
Matt Spetalnick
,
Reuters
Iranian worshippers chant slogans during an anti-Israeli gathering after Friday prayers in Tehran, Iran, 2024. File photo.
Photo:
AP / Vahid Salemi
Analysis -
Israel's surprise attack on Iran
had an obvious goal of sharply disrupting Tehran's nuclear programme and lengthening the time it would need to develop an atomic weapon.
The scale of the attacks, Israel's choice of targets and its politicians' own words suggest another, longer-term objective - toppling the regime itself.
The strikes early on Friday (local time) hit, not just Iran's nuclear facilities and missile factories, but also key figures in the country's military chain of command and its nuclear scientists, blows that appear aimed at diminishing Iran's credibility, both at home and among its allies in the region - factors that could destabilise the Iranian leadership, experts said.
"One assumes that one of the reasons Israel is doing that is they're hoping to see regime change," said Michael Singh of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former senior official under President George W Bush.
"It would like to see the people of Iran rise up," he said, adding that the limited civilian casualties in the initial round of attacks also spoke to a broader aim.
In a video address
shortly after Israeli fighter jets began striking Iranian nuclear facilities and air defence systems, Israel Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to the Iranian people directly.
Photo:
-
Israel's actions against Iran's ally Hezbollah led to a new government in Lebanon and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, he said. The Iranian people had an opportunity too.
"I believe that the day of your liberation is near and when that happens, the great friendship between our two ancient peoples will flourish once again," said Netanyahu
Despite the damage inflicted by the unprecedented Israeli attack, decades of enmity toward Israel - not only among Iran's rulers, but its majority-Shi'ite population - raised questions about the prospect for fomenting enough public support to oust an entrenched theocratic leadership in Tehran, backed by loyal security forces.
Singh cautioned that no-one knew what conditions would be required for an opposition to coalesce in Iran.
Friday's assault was the first phase of what Israel said would be a prolonged operation. Experts said they expected Israel would continue to go after key Iranian nuclear infrastructure to delay Tehran's march to a nuclear bomb, even if Israel - on its own - did not have the capability to eliminate Iran's nuclear programme.
Iran said its nuclear programme was for civilian purposes only. The UN nuclear watchdog concluded this week that it violated its obligations under the global non-proliferation treaty.
Israel's first salvoes targeted senior figures in Iran's military and scientific establishment, took out much of the country's air defence system and destroyed the above-ground enrichment plant at Iran's nuclear site.
"As a democratic country, the State of Israel believes that it is up to the people of a country to shape their national politics and choose their government," the Israeli embassy in Washington told
Reuters.
"The future of Iran can only be determined by the Iranian people."
Netanyahu has called for a change in Iran's government, including in September.
US President Donald Trump's administration, while acquiescing to Israel's strikes and helping its close ally fend off Iran's retaliatory missile barrage, has given no indication that it seeks regime change in Tehran.
The White House and Iran's mission to the United Nations in New York also did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the matter.
Israel has much further to go if it is to dismantle Iran's nuclear facilities and military analysts have always said it might be impossible to totally disable the well-fortified sites dotted around Iran.
The Israeli government has also cautioned that Iran's nuclear programme could not be entirely destroyed by means of a military campaign.
"There's no way to destroy a nuclear programme by military means," Israel's National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi told Israel's
Channel 13 TV
.
The military campaign could, however, create conditions for a deal with the US that would thwart the nuclear programme.
Analysts also remain sceptical that Israel will have the munitions needed to obliterate Iran's nuclear project on its own.
"Israel probably cannot take out completely the nuclear project on its own, without the American participation," Sima Shine, a former chief Mossad analyst and now a researcher at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, told reporters on Friday.
While setting back Tehran's nuclear programme would have value for Israel, the hope for regime change could explain why Israel went after so many senior military figures, potentially throwing the Iranian security establishment into confusion and chaos.
"These people were very vital, very knowledgeable, many years in their jobs and they were a very important component of the stability of the regime, specifically the security stability of the regime," Shine said. "In the ideal world, Israel would prefer to see a change of regime, no question about that."
Such a change would come with risk, said Jonathan Panikoff, a former US deputy national intelligence officer for the Middle East, who is now at the Atlantic Council.
If Israel succeeds in removing Iran's leadership, there is no guarantee that the successor that emerges would not be even more hardline in pursuit of conflict with Israel.
"For years, many in Israel have insisted that regime change in Iran would prompt a new and better day - that nothing could be worse than the current theocratic regime," Panikoff said.
"History tells us it can always be worse."
-Reuters

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

RNZ News

15 hours ago

• RNZ News

Trump's new two-week negotiating window sets off scramble to restart stalled Iran talks

By Kevin Liptak, Kylie Atwood and Jennifer Hansler , CNN Photo: AFP / Brendan Smialowski US President Donald Trump's decision to open a two-week negotiating window before deciding on striking Iran has set off an urgent effort to restart talks that had been deadlocked, when Israel began its bombing campaign last week . The hope among Trump and his advisers is that Iran - under constant Israeli attack and suffering losses to its missile arsenal - will relent on its hardline position and agree to terms it had previously rejected, including abandoning its enrichment of uranium, according to US officials. The deferred decision, which came after days of increasingly martial messages from the president suggesting he was preparing to order a strike, also gives Trump more time to weigh the potential consequences - including the chance it could drag the United States into the type of foreign conflict he promised to avoid. Negotiating a diplomatic solution in Trump's condensed timeline appeared to face significant early hurdles. Earlier this week, discussions were underway inside the White House to dispatch Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Vice President JD Vance to the region for talks with Iran, but as Trump grew wary that diplomatic efforts might succeed, the idea never resulted in scheduled talks, and both Vance and Witkoff remained in Washington as of Thursday. Foreign ministers from Britain, Germany and France are travelling to Geneva on Friday to hold talks with Iranian representatives, and have been briefed on the details of the last deal Witkoff offered to Iran, which Tehran ultimately rejected, before the Israeli strikes began. US officials did not have high expectations of success for Friday's meeting in Geneva, but a White House official kept the door open to progress. "This is a meeting between European leaders and Iran," a White House official said. "The President supports diplomatic efforts from our allies that could bring Iran closer to taking his deal." Iran's consistent message to the US since Israel began its strikes has been it would not engage in further talks, until the ongoing Israeli operation ends, two sources familiar with the messages said. The US had so far not pressured Israel to halt its strikes, sources said, and Trump said this week that his message to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been to "keep going". So far, Iran has offered no indication it is willing to move off its positions on enrichment, which it views as a red line. As of Thursday, no official talks between the US and Iran were on the books, US officials said. In putting off a decision, Trump appears to be placing more stock in a diplomatic solution that only a day earlier he appeared to suggest was out of reach. "I think the president has made it clear he always wants to pursue diplomacy, but believe me, the president is unafraid to use strength if necessary," press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, after relaying Trump's new two-week timeline. "Iran and the entire world should know that the United States military is the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world, and we have capabilities that no other country on this planet possesses." New vehicle tracks and dirt piles over underground centrifuge buildings at Natanz enrichment facility. Photo: AFP / Maxar Technologies In a string of situation room meetings over the course of this week, Trump has quizzed advisers about the likelihood US bunker-buster bombs could entirely eliminate Iran's underground nuclear facility at Fordow and how long such an operation might last, according to people familiar with the conversations. He has repeatedly insisted he wants to avoid taking action that could devolve into a multi-year conflict, something many of his own loyalists - including one-time top strategist Steve Bannon, with whom the president had lunch Thursday - argue would be unavoidable, should he make the decision to go ahead. While the president has seen the military options, he remains worried about a longer-term war. Any assessments on whether a strike would cause prolonged US engagement are predictive and, by their nature, not entirely satisfactory, one official said. The new, within-two-weeks time-frame for talks was not universally welcomed. An Israeli intelligence official expressed dismay that Trump would not make a decision - one way or the other. "This is not helping," the official said. Trump will continue to convene top-level intelligence briefings over the coming days, returning to Washington early from a weekend trip to his property in New Jersey to be updated at the White House. He has relied principally on CIA director John Ratcliffe and Joint Chiefs chairman Gen Dan Caine in meetings to discuss his options, according to people familiar with the matter. At the centre of the diplomatic efforts will be Witkoff, the president's friend and foreign envoy, who has led negotiations meant to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Witkoff began direct-messaging with his Iranian counterpart, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, earlier this month and the administration has maintained some communications with Iranian officials over the past tense days, as Trump weighed a strike. The plan Witkoff last offered to Tehran would have required Iran to eventually end all uranium enrichment on its soil and, on Thursday, the White House said it still viewed a ban on Iranian uranium enrichment as necessary to a final deal. As the Europeans head into Friday's meeting, they will be "taking the temperature" on how receptive the Iranians are to finding a diplomatic solution, given their belief that strikes in both directions are not a solution, a European official said. European leaders believe the risks of Iran's nuclear programme persist even amid Israel's strikes, because Tehran maintains nuclear know-how and may still have clandestine nuclear-related efforts that won't get demolished by military strikes. Meanwhile, most US diplomats who are not in Trump's inner circle at the State Department have not been given specific guidance to offer US allies on the diplomatic efforts, a US official and a European diplomat said. That has led to many frustrating discussions with foreign interlocutors as US diplomats have very few answers to give the allies as they try to determine their diplomatic and military posture in the region, pointing only to Trump's own words. Marco Rubio. Photo: Pool / AFP / Jacquelyn Martin As Trump has weighed his options, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been close by, also departing early from the Group of 7 summit in Canada along with the commander in chief earlier this week. On Monday, the top US diplomat spoke with his French, British and European Union counterparts about efforts to "encourage a diplomatic path that ensures Iran never develops a nuclear weapon", according to State Department readouts of the calls. On Wednesday, Rubio "compared notes" on the matter with the Norwegian foreign minister. Rubio met with British Foreign Secretary David Lammy on Thursday, before Lammy departed for the Geneva talks, and the two "agreed Iran can never develop or acquire a nuclear weapon", according to the State Department. "Meeting with Secretary of State Rubio and Special Envoy to the Middle East Witkoff in the White House today, we discussed how Iran must make a deal to avoid a deepening conflict," Lammy said in a statement Thursday. "A window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution." US officials, including Witkoff, have also been actively engaged with officials in the region, many of whom have offered their help in mediating a diplomatic path forward. Sources said Iran had responded to messages from third parties, but their responses had not changed. - CNN

Otago Daily Times

16 hours ago

• Otago Daily Times

Trump to decide US' Israel-Iran action in next two weeks

President Donald Trump will decide in the next two weeks whether the U.S. will get involved in the Israel-Iran air war, the White House said, raising pressure on Tehran to come to the negotiating table. Citing a message from Trump, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters: "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks." The Republican president has kept the world guessing on his plans, veering from proposing a swift diplomatic solution to suggesting the U.S. might join the fighting on Israel's side. On Wednesday (local time), he said nobody knew what he would do. A day earlier he mused on social media about killing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, then demanded Iran's unconditional surrender. The threats have caused cracks in Trump's support base between more hawkish traditional Republicans and the party's more isolationist elements. But critics said that in the five months since returning to office, Trump has issued a range of deadlines - including to warring Russia and Ukraine and to other countries in trade tariff negotiations - only to suspend those deadlines or allow them to slide. "I think going to war with Iran is a terrible idea, but no one believes this 'two weeks' bit," Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said on the social media platform X. "He's used it a million times before to pretend he might be doing something he's not. It just makes America look weak and silly." Leavitt told a regular briefing at the White House that Trump was interested in pursuing a diplomatic solution with Iran, but his top priority was ensuring that Iran could not obtain a nuclear weapon. She said any deal would have to prohibit enrichment of uranium by Tehran and eliminate Iran's ability to achieve a nuclear weapon. "The president is always interested in a diplomatic solution ... if there's a chance for diplomacy, the president's always going to grab it," Leavitt said. "But he's not afraid to use strength as well I will add." BYPASSING CONGRESS? Leavitt declined to say if Trump would seek congressional authorization for any strikes on Iran. Democrats have raised concerns over reports on CBS and other outlets that Trump has already approved a plan to attack Iran, bypassing Congress, which has the sole power to declare war. Leavitt said U.S. officials remained convinced that Iran had never been closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon, saying it would take Tehran just "a couple of weeks" to produce such a weapon. Leavitt's assessment contradicted congressional testimony in March from Trump's intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard. She said then that the U.S. intelligence community continued to judge that Tehran was not working on a nuclear warhead. This week, Trump dismissed Gabbard's March testimony, telling reporters: "I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one." On Wednesday, Trump lieutenant Steve Bannon urged caution about the U.S. joining Israel in trying to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Israel bombed nuclear targets in Iran on Thursday and Iran fired missiles and drones at Israel after hitting an Israeli hospital overnight, as a week-old air war escalated and neither side showed any sign of an exit strategy. Leavitt said Trump had been briefed on the Israeli operation on Thursday and remained in close communication with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She said Iran was in "a deeply vulnerable position" and would face grave consequences if it did not agree to halt its work on a nuclear weapon. Iran has been weighing wider options in responding to the biggest security challenge since its 1979 revolution. Three diplomats told Reuters that Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi have spoken by phone several times since Israel began its strikes last week.

Newsroom

17 hours ago

• Newsroom

The Israel-Iran conflict may not end without a regime change

Analysis: The spiral of conflict in the Middle East took another dangerous turn when Israel, seemingly unprovoked, attacked Iran last Friday on an unprecedented scale, taking the region to the brink of full-scale war as Iran retaliates. The day before Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched the still ongoing war, he went to the Western Wall (or Wailing Wall) sacred to Jews and posted a note into a crack in the colossal stone blocks as per the ritual. The note quoted the biblical Book of Numbers: 'Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion.' Hence the name Operation Rising Lion. When I visited Jerusalem in 2023, I made it into the tunnels behind and beneath the Western Wall and saw long forgotten and faded notes scattered on the ground. My guess is that the current trajectory in the Middle East will see Netanyahu's vision for Israeli power and security cast in the dirt also. For most, the main question now is whether there is any justification or tangible reason for Israel's pre-emptive attack against Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme. My response would be that mutual perceptions of existential crisis in Israel and Iran is driving the region deeper into crisis. To understand this, one could adopt a lens of ontological security. This means the very identity and essence of the political systems in Israel and Iran are intrinsically tied to ideologically conditioned language and behaviours without which the regimes would deflate and crash to earth like punctured hot air balloons. According to this understanding, Israel and Iran have been on a collision course since the formerly close allies parted ways 45 years ago after the Iranian revolution. Let me explain. The raison d'être of the Israeli state is to protect its citizens above all – this is perhaps the one universal principle of an otherwise diverse and increasingly politically divided nation. The more that Israelis feel threatened, the more the state's identity becomes anchored to an inflexible security paradigm willing to compromise the lives and human security of others who are perceived as a 'threat', including Palestinians and those who support them. On the Iranian side, the Islamic Republic emerged out of a popular revolution against the repressive western-aligned Pahlavi monarchy. Again, like the State of Israel the Islamic Republic immediately faced attack and isolation, which led to regression into a narrow, paranoid oligarchy with a theocratic veneer. To offset flagging internal legitimacy, the regime exaggerated the Islamic character of the state by taking up the cause of Muslim justice abroad. The Palestinian issue and anti-Israel sentiment – manifested in the Axis of Resistance alliance – came to rest at the core of the Iranian regime's identity. A senior cleric of the ruling oligarchy expressed this reality perfectly in 2013 when he stated: 'The destruction of Israel is the idea of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and is one of the pillars of the Iranian Islamic regime. We cannot claim that we have no intention of going to war with Israel.' The two core paradigms of both states are mutually reinforcing – Iran props up its internal legitimacy by proclaiming a desire to destroy the Zionist state on behalf of Muslims, and Israel commits atrocities against Muslims in its search for security for Jews. Since the 2000s, the spectre of a nuclear-armed Iranian state amplified this cycle immensely. Israel has been planning to strike Iran's nuclear programme since at least 2007. At that time Israel embarrassed the Syrian regime and its Iranian ally by effortlessly evading air defences to destroy a nuclear research facility in Northeast Syria. The Israeli Defence Force then made clear its intention and capacity to do the same in Iran. What prevented Israel were Iran's regional assets, located on Israel's borders. If Israel were to attack Iran directly, they would have faced a barrage of missiles and rockets from resistance axis allies, Hamas and other militia in Gaza, and from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Syria also posed a possible threat from the Golan. This was the Iranian regime's outer defence rim and insurance policy. This changed after the October 7, 2023 attacks. By the end of 2024, Hamas and Hezbollah were no longer able to threaten Israel as before, the Al-Assad regime was gone and the path to Tehran and the Furdow, Netanz and other nuclear facilities were wide open. If US president Donald Trump had not restrained Netanyahu in the first months of 2025, the latter may have pulled the trigger on the attack even earlier. Trump, in consultation with Gulf allies during his May visit to the Middle East, which tellingly did not include Israel, was persuaded to leverage the vulnerable Iranian state into a more favourable nuclear deal. Talks were being facilitated by the neutral Omanis in Muscat. Trump had scotched the 2013-15 deal negotiated by Barak Obama, also hosted by Oman, in 2018. The latest round of talks were due to be held in Muscat on Sunday, June 15. The Iranians relaxed their security personal protocols put in place after the assassinations of top leaders via pinpoint strikes through 2024, believing that they were safe until at least after the talks. Netanyahu sensed the opportunity and his war cabinet ordered Operation Rising Lion. (Apart from a spike in pizza deliveries to the Pentagon on the day before the attacks it remains unclear how much knowedge the US had of the operation.) Where the current conflict will lead is not clear. At this point, it seems neither the Israelis nor the Iranians can change the script. The Israeli regime will act according to an ingrained impulse to destroy anything and anyone they think poses an existential risk to the State of Israel. The Islamic Republic will continue to fire back as much as they can with missiles and inflammatory rhetoric about the final destruction of Israel. It may be that only regime change in Tehran and Jerusalem via the Iranian and Israeli peoples can arrest the cycle.