Netanyahu’s Real Goal: Not Regime Change in Iran, But Total System Collapse

Watan-In a Guardian report by Peter Beaumont, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is described not as merely aiming for regime change in Iran—but for the complete destruction of its governing system. Speaking to Fox News, Netanyahu made clear that his agenda includes not just striking nuclear and missile infrastructure, but destabilizing the state itself, implying that 80% of Iranians could rise up and overthrow what he called “religious thugs.”

The recent Israeli attacks on key infrastructure in Iran—including police headquarters, IRGC intelligence offices, and even a state TV studio mid-broadcast—suggest a broader war doctrine. Netanyahu, despite never having visited Iran, relies heavily on intelligence reports and pro-Israel think tanks.

The rhetoric mirrors that used by Netanyahu and U.S. neoconservatives before the 2003 Iraq invasion—claims that the local population would welcome foreign-led regime change. But, as with Iraq and Libya, such interventions brought prolonged chaos, bloodshed, and the rise of non-state actors. Iran’s 1979 revolution itself was followed by a long and violent internal power struggle—suggesting that outside calls for revolution are naive at best.

CNN quoted Iranian author Arash Azizi saying that activists in Iran do not share values with Netanyahu. Ali Vaez from the Carnegie Endowment noted on the “Pivotal States” podcast that Iranians fear sudden upheaval due to past trauma from revolution, preferring gradual reform over violent overthrows.

Many Iranians believe that the Israeli war harms, rather than helps, their struggle for freedom. The Israeli objective appears to be destabilization, not democratization—mirroring Israel’s past strategy in Gaza and Lebanon. Netanyahu, critics say, has no post-war plan—just destruction.

U.S. officials are reportedly concerned by Israel’s extremity. One American official told Axios: “They’re probably more comfortable destroying Iran than we are.” Lessons from Iraq and Libya show that installing foreign-backed exiles like Ahmed Chalabi, or post-war vacuums like Libya’s, only compound regional instability.

Observers also doubt whether an Israeli air war could eliminate Iran’s regime—even with the death of Ayatollah Khamenei. Instead, it may push Iran to accelerate its nuclear program and gain legitimacy through nationalism, especially as regional opinion sours on Israel’s aggression.

Jordan’s King Abdullah warned, “No one knows where the limits of this war end.” Jordan already bears the burden of Syrian and Iraqi refugees and fears deeper instability.

Meanwhile, Guardian editor Patrick Wintour wrote that Trump’s policies left Europe isolated. Trump forced Iran into a false choice: surrender to negotiations or face total annihilation. His posture—both towards Iran and Europe—was unilateral and dismissive.

At the recent G7 summit, Trump left early and refused to endorse ceasefire language. Emmanuel Macron tried to mediate, but Trump derided his efforts. U.S. diplomats even removed ceasefire language from the joint statement, replacing it with generic affirmations of Israel’s right to self-defense.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz praised Israel’s “dirty work” on behalf of the world, while UK Prime Minister Starmer and Macron expressed caution. Ultimately, Europe is reduced to a spectator of history—issuing statements while others act.

European diplomats did attempt to de-escalate by calling Iran’s foreign minister and urging an unconditional ceasefire and reversal of nuclear threats. But Iran insisted it would not disarm unless Israel also de-escalated.

Left with two choices—destruction or humiliation—Iran faces existential dilemmas. Europe, meanwhile, may be awakening to the magnitude of the crisis.