Iran containment or regime change – possibilities roar

Ending wars is more challenging than initiating them. This is particularly true in the Middle East, where the fundamental reasons for the conflicts are often irreconcilable. Key factors include religion, tribal blood feuds, and vital resources, primarily oil and water. It remains too soon to predict accurately the potential outcomes of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran.

In the past, Israel and Iran had no reasons to engage in warfare. However, the Shia Islamic Revolution of 1979 introduced a new regime that identified Israel as a target for conflict. As a Jewish state, Israel, along with its ally, the United States, was viewed by the Shia leader, the Ayatollah, as a primary adversary. His vision is for the world to embrace a singular religion, Islam, and a singular interpretation of it, Shia.

Gradually, Iran grew more powerful and assertive, partly due to the decline of other rivals like Iraq. It established alliances with global powers that provided military support and expertise, notably Russia and China. Both Russia and North Korea were prepared to aid Iran in its efforts to enrich uranium and develop a missile programme. At its core, money plays a vital role in these dynamics, and Iran has successfully responded by providing drones to Russia for deployment against Ukraine.

The Ayatollah remained focused on their goal. For decades, threats of Israel’s complete annihilation were accompanied by tangible actions. Iran sought to advance its interpretation of Shia Islam on an international level and participated in regional interventions, either directly or via proxy groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and in support of Hamas in Gaza.

The assault on Israel from Gaza on 7 October 2023, received backing from Iran. Moreover, there was proof of direct military involvement, including Iran supplying Hezbollah with rockets to target Israel from Lebanon, as well as offering intelligence and missiles to the Houthis for assaults from Yemen. In addition, drone and missile strikes were launched directly from Iran in April and October 2024.

Multiple global efforts aimed at confirming that Iran’s uranium enrichment activities weren’t intended for military purposes ultimately proved ineffective. In May and early June 2025, the reality of the situation was brought to light. The board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the international nuclear oversight body, officially stated that Iran was in violation of its non-proliferation commitments. Additionally, it raised the alarm over Iran’s accumulation of enriched uranium, which could potentially be used in the production of nuclear weapons.

On Saturday, 31 May, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office released a statement on the IAEA report. The report was the catalyst, the smoking gun. The statement implicitly indicated that a pre-emptive and preventive reaction was imminent. On the morning of 13 June, various Israeli security, defence, and intelligence agencies launched attacks on uranium enrichment sites, ballistic missile launchers, and arms manufacturing facilities. In accordance with policy, individuals involved in the massacre and atrocities committed during the 7 October invasion of Israel were also specifically targeted and assassinated.

Named Operation Rising Lion, the military operation against Iran is part of the Iron Swords War. The implications are clear. Israel has its limits, and is addressing only the symptoms rather than the root causes. It is effectively severing the head of the serpent by dismantling the ability to enrich uranium and launch missiles. Regime change in Tehran may be necessary to tackle the underlying issues. There is hope that the Iranian people will rise up like a lion to overthrow the current regime.

The past 48 years in the history of Israel, which recently celebrated its 77th Independence Day, evoke a feeling of hope. Before this era, it was hard to believe that peace treaties could be forged with Egypt and Jordan, countries that once aimed to destroy it. Certainly, the Abraham Accords would have appeared to be a plot from a science fiction novel.

As a result, Israelis facing missile and drone attacks from Iran are probably contemplating when change will happen in Iran rather than if it will. It’s reasonable to assume that Iranians are also weary of being oppressed and having their economy exploited for ideological purposes by a small group of radicals in power.

It’s still unclear how or when this situation will unfold or when Israel’s operation will come to an end. In fact, historical data indicates that the full consequences of Israel’s preventive and pre-emptive strike on Iran may take years to become apparent. For instance, a weakened Shia regime or a change in regime could potentially heighten Shia-Sunni tensions globally. Furthermore, in the absence of a regime change, will the Ayatollah’s resolve to obtain a nuclear bomb be stronger than ever?

Nonetheless, it’s not premature to investigate strategies for de-escalation. Leading the way is global diplomacy focused on containment to discourage others from participating and to prevent escalation. Debates have occurred within the United Nations, and world leaders have expressed their opinions. They don’t feel an immediate need to send large forces to the region, as Israel and Iran don’t have a shared border, indicating that no territory has been invaded and no vital resources have been expropriated. The casualty figures are less than those usually observed in significant urban traffic incidents over a weekend in a large Western city.

In reality, there appears to be a subtle sense of contentment regarding the setbacks for Iran’s uranium and missile programmes due to Israel’s military operation. However, the Middle East continues to be an area where unforeseen occurrences can arise at any moment. The resolution of the Israel and Iran war might manifest as an event or process that has never happened before and is beyond what one can envision.

• Glen Segell is a professor at the University of Cambridge.