Iran: Can war with Israel trigger regime change? – DW
The Islamist regime in Tehran has been using the conflict with Israel to rally support and unify the Iranian people behind them. But can Iran's current system really survive the crisis?
"Iran will not surrender and will continue to defend itself," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, told the public in a televised speech this week, following days of Israeli bombing and Iran's retaliatory strikes.
His exact location is unclear. Rumors and hints from the US and the Israeli governments indicate that he could be personally targeted at some point by an Israeli air strike. If Khamenei is assassinated, he would share the fate of many high-ranking members of his regime who have been killed in recent days.
And this has prompted many to ask — how can a regime that fails to protect its own top officials be trusted to protect Iran's borders?
"Despite all claims [by the Iranian government] about missile defense or protecting command centers, the absolute inefficiency of this regime has become apparent to the public," exiled Iran expert and sociologist Majid Golpour told DW.
Iran's Khamenei defies Trump's call to surrender
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Could this weakness bring about the collapse of the Islamist regime? According to Golpour, this mostly depends on its political alternative.
"Now is the time for the nation's political forces to present a common charter — both against the ruling system and against outside threats. But there are still no concrete plans, functioning coalitions and viable structures inside the opposition," Golpour said.
Opposition in Iran battered for decades
But finding common ground is easier said than done. Even outside Iran, opponents of the regime are split into rival groups. One faction of the Iranian diaspora regards the eldest son of the ousted Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as a possible interim ruler — or at least a symbol of national unity.
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Prince Reza Pahlavi has mostly been living in the US and has tried to position himself as a political leader and opponent of the Islamic Republic. He has no political organization active on Iranian soil.
And that's no surprise — the Islamist regime has been suppressing dissenting voices inside Iran for many decades. Any person posing a possible threat to the regime is discredited, harassed, arrested and often sentenced to long prison terms.
Still, political scientist Shukriya Bradost, a non-resident scholar at the Middle East Institute, a US-based think tank, believes there is a chance of a political shift.
Iranians protest Israeli strikes
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Bradost believes that a political vacuum could emerge if the regime gets seriously weakened. This would allow opposition groups to organize protests and strikes, and enact wide-reaching change.
Will war make Iranians more patriotic?
A deciding factor during wartime is the feeling of patriotism linking Iranians to their country. This sense of unity helped the Islamist regime stabilize after the 1979 revolution. When Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, attacked Iran in 1980, people rallied behind the country and persevered through eight years of war that cost the country up to 1 million Iranian lives.
The Islamist leaders are once again using nationalist rhetoric to firm up support.
"The Islamic Republic has recognized that people no longer identify with the idea of a 'nation of Islam,' but rather see themselves as citizens of Iran. No sensible person can be fooled by this staged nationalism," political scientist and journalist Shahran Tabari told DW.
It is however difficult to ascertain what people of Iran feel at this time — except for fear and anger about the escalating conflict happening without their consent.
Waiting for Trump's decision
Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi, famous for her fight for women's rights in Iran, recently called on Israel to stop its attacks and urged a truce across the Middle East.
"I want to ask President Trump — not only not to join this war, but to stop it," she said in a video message carried by US broadcaster CNN.
Meanwhile, the West seems to be divided on Iran and without a clear strategy for a regime change. While some voices in the US, like former National Security Adviser John Bolton, call for a military intervention, US President Donald Trump seem to be hesitant — for now.
Iran's exiled prince urges global support for Iranian people
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
This article was originally published in German
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
39 minutes ago
- Int'l Business Times
Tel Aviv Journalist Reveals Aftermath of Iranian Missile Strike on Her Home: 'I'm Deeply Disturbed'
An American journalist living in Tel Aviv revealed the destruction left behind after an Iranian missile struck her home as conflict between Israel and Iran continues. Shanna Fuld moved to Israel from New York in 2018 to found Israel Daily News, an independent outlet covering news across the country. On Friday, the journalist shared video of the debris left behind after her home, where she also runs the news outlet from, was destroyed by an Iranian missile. In a video shared to Instagram , Fuld walks across uneven debris covering her floor. Chunks of her ceiling can be seen missing and the windows are missing glass. She said her bedroom door and wall were also "blown off" in the attack. "It's devastating to see it like this," she said. "My living room is in tatters, it's in crisis. My kitchen doesn't exist." Fuld described seeing the destruction as "deeply painful." "I feel deeply disturbed. I feel frustrated. I feel angry," she continued. "It takes a lot to build a home, so when it comes crashing down all in two minutes it's really challenging." Despite the devastation, Fuld said she does not regret moving to Israel. She said she plans to continue living in Tel Aviv and vowed to rebuild. Fuld's home was one of several buildings subjected to missile strikes as war between Israel and Iran rages on. The conflict began June 13 when Israel targeted Iranian military and nuclear sites. In turn, Iran fired hundreds of missiles and drones at the country, the Associated Press reported. A week into the fighting, more than 600 Iranians and more than 20 Israelis are believed to have been killed. More than 2,000 people have been wounded in Iran while hundreds have been injured in Israel. As officials seek to put a diplomatic end to the conflict, President Donald Trump announced he would allow for two weeks for the countries to agree to a ceasefire before deciding whether the U.S. will aid Israel's fight. Originally published on Latin Times
Int'l Business Times
2 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Iran's Nuclear Programme: From Its Origins To Today's Dispute
A week ago, Israel launched an unprecedented attack against Iran, saying the country was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, a claim Tehran has always denied. Western powers have repeatedly expressed concerns about the rapid expansion of Iran's nuclear programme, questioning in particular the country's accelerated uranium enrichment. The following is a recap of the main developments regarding Iran's nuclear programme, as European foreign ministers are holding nuclear talks with their Iranian counterpart in Switzerland on Friday. Iran laid the foundation for its nuclear programme in the late 1950s with technical assistance from the United States, when Iran's ruling shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, signed a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the US. In 1970, Iran ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), committing it to declare its nuclear material to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But revelations in the early 2000s about undeclared nuclear sites raised concerns. An 2011 IAEA report, collating "broadly credible" intelligence, said that at least until 2003 Iran "carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device". After suspending enrichment activities, Iran began talks with European and then international powers that would later culminate in a historic deal. On July 14, 2015, Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany reached an accord in Vienna. The deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), placed significant restrictions on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief after 12 years of crisis and 21 months of protracted negotiations. But the hard-won deal began to unravel when the US under President Donald Trump walked away from it on May 8, 2018, and reimposed sanctions on Iran. Following the US withdrawal, Iran retaliated by stepping up its nuclear activities as if "a red cape had been waved in front of a bull," said Clement Therme, associate researcher at the Rasanah International Institute for Iranian Studies. According to Therme, Iran "embarked on a strategy of escalation" in a bid to up pressure and obtain help to circumvent sanctions. But Tehran's moves were unsuccessful and came at an "exorbitant economic cost". Iran first began enriching uranium to five percent -- breaching the limit of 3.67 percent imposed by the deal -- before it raised the enrichment levels to 20 and then to 60 percent in 2021, which is a short step from the 90 percent required for use in a weapon. Iran has also increased its stockpiles of enriched uranium, which was set at 202.8 kilogrammes under the deal. Iran's total enriched uranium stockpile is currently believed to be more than 45 times that limit. And Tehran has since exceeded the number of centrifuges -- the machines used to enrich uranium -- it is allowed to have while beginning to produce more material faster by using advanced models at its plants. Efforts to revive the deal have been fruitless so far, with European-led talks on hold since summer 2022. After Trump's return to the White House, talks between Washington and Iran and mediated by Oman resumed in April. While the US president has voiced confidence that Iran would eventually sign a nuclear deal, Tehran has said that Israeli strikes that targeted a slew of military and nuclear sites "dealt a blow" to diplomacy. Faced with Iran's rapidly expanding nuclear programme, the IAEA expressed "serious concern" in its latest quarterly report at the end of May. According to the UN agency, Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon state to enrich uranium to 60 percent. It theoretically has enough near-weapons-grade material, if further refined, for more than nine bombs. However, the manufacturing and delivering of a nuclear bomb requires many other steps, including mastering both ballistics and the miniaturisation of the nuclear charge. The IAEA has said it currently has "no indication" of the existence of a "systematic programme" in Iran to produce a nuclear weapon. US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified to a Senate committee in March that Iran was not actively building a nuclear bomb. Iran has always denied having such ambitions, regularly referring to a long-standing fatwa, or religious edict, by Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei prohibiting atomic weapons.
DW
3 hours ago
- DW
UK Parliament backs assisted dying bill in historic vote – DW
Lawmakers in Britain have taken a historic step toward allowing assisted dying. The change would see England and Wales join other countries that allow terminally ill adults to choose to end their lives. Lawmakers in the United Kingdom have approved a bill allowing terminally ill adults in England and Wales to end their lives. The vote marks a major step toward legalizing assisted dying — one of the most significant social policy changes in decades and comparable to Britain's partial legalization of abortion in 1967. How did the vote go? Members of Parliament voted 314 to 291 in favor of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill after an emotional debate. The 23-vote difference was slimmer than the 55-vote margin in a similar vote last November, after some lawmakers changed their stance. The legislation now moves to the House of Lords, which can delay or amend the bill but cannot entirely block it. The bill has sparked debate across party lines and among the public. Supporters argue that people facing terminal illness should have the right to end their suffering with dignity. They also highlight inequalities, pointing out that wealthier individuals can travel to Switzerland where assisted dying is permitted, while others cannot. Critics fear the law could pressure vulnerable individuals — particularly the elderly and disabled — into ending their lives due to societal or familial pressures. They warn of potential abuses and stress the need for robust safeguards. What makes assisted suicide so controversial? To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The UK's center-left Labour government remains divided. Prime Minister Keir Starmer supported the bill, but Health Secretary Wes Streeting opposed it. Ministers said they would respect the vote's outcome. What does the legislation allow? The bill would permit terminally ill people aged 18 or older in England and Wales, with a prognosis of fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death. The legislation was changed from a previous version that required a judge's approval. Under the new plan, approval would come from two doctors and a review panel that includes a psychiatrist, a senior legal expert and a social worker. The bill does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. Scotland is considering its own version of similar legislation. There is still uncertainty about the financial and logistical implications for the UK's National Health Service, hospice services, and the justice system. Assisted suicide is legal in several countries, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, and parts of the US. Rules on eligibility vary widely. It is distinct from euthanasia, which is legal in the Netherlands and Canada, where doctors can administer life-ending drugs at a patient's request under strict criteria. Edited by Sean Sinico
