In the spring of 2025, a twelve-day war broke out between Israel and Iran—or more precisely, between Israel and the military, nuclear, and security infrastructure of the Islamic Republic. Although the war remained limited on the surface, it was a stark warning that the historic confrontation between these two irreconcilable enemies had entered a bold new phase. Israel’s attacks on sensitive facilities in Karaj, Isfahan, Dezful, and Tehran, along with targeted assassinations and cyber operations against Iran’s defence systems, all signalled that this time, Tel Aviv was not merely aiming to contain the Islamic Republic but planning to end its very existence.
This notion was reinforced when, during the attacks, Reza Pahlavi’s media activities intensified as if he were running an election campaign. He even travelled to Paris—the same city from which Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran in 1979 amid the Shah’s collapse. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly declared, “See you soon in Tehran,” and after the attacks began, he called on the Iranian people to rise up, explicitly confirming his aim of toppling the Islamic Republic.
On the surface, Israel seemed closer than ever to realizing one of its longstanding goals: weakening, destabilizing, and perhaps ultimately overthrowing a regime it views as an existential threat. But this potential victory carries a cost that has received little attention in Israel’s strategic calculations: the loss of Iran—not just the current regime, but the nation and its geopolitical identity.
While the Islamic Republic may soon collapse under economic pressure, internal discontent, and external attacks, the memory of Israeli aggression will be etched into the historical consciousness of Iranians as that of a destructive, intrusive, and humiliating force. The danger is that Israel, through its actions, may sever ties with a nation in such a way that even after the regime’s fall, reconciliation may be impossible.
This article addresses the fundamental question:
In seeking the Islamic Republic’s destruction, is Israel unintentionally sacrificing its own long-term future alongside a free and independent Iran?
Answering this requires reconsidering the trade-offs between short-term security and long-term interests, and distinguishing hostility toward a regime from hostility toward an entire nation.
“Mastery of Shadow War”
Over the past two decades, Israel has demonstrated unprecedented expertise in conducting intelligence operations, cyber warfare, and targeted assassinations—forms of conflict that blur the lines between war and peace, and between domestic and foreign territory. This “shadow war” has evolved from a complementary tactic to a full alternative to traditional military operations—an invisible war with high effectiveness.
Within this framework, Mossad has successfully infiltrated, disrupted, or destroyed some of the deepest and most secure elements of the Islamic Republic’s security structure. The assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (the architect of Iran’s nuclear program), explosions at Natanz, sabotage at facilities in Karaj and Isfahan, extraction of nuclear documents from the heart of Tehran, and cyber warfare against air defence infrastructure all point to a bold, precise, and cohesive strategy.
Beyond its operational capacity, Israel has succeeded in shattering the Islamic Republic’s intelligence prestige—something that has shaken internal structures and eroded its legitimacy among the public. For the first time, a regime that projected itself as an “impregnable fortress” has been revealed as a vulnerable and infiltratable entity.
According to RAND analysis, Mossad’s 2025 operations were conducted with unprecedented precision, targeting command and control structures deep within Iran, severely damaging the morale of the regime’s elite.
Additionally, by limiting Iran’s ability to respond, Israel has damaged the regime’s credibility without entering full-scale war. Its use of anti-regime proxy groups in Iraqi Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, and even inside Iran has kept costs low while returns remained high.
For Tel Aviv, these operations are not merely deterrents—they are deliberate steps toward containing, weakening, and ultimately collapsing a regime viewed as a potential nuclear threat, Hezbollah’s main patron, and a leading anti-Israel actor in the region.
But where tactical success peaks, the article’s core question emerges:
Does victory in this shadow war necessarily lead to a post-Islamic Republic Iran aligned with Israel? Or might these very victories plant seeds of long-term enmity that extend beyond the regime to the Iranian people themselves? Or worse—will the conflict leave Iran so fractured that even the idea of a unified nation disappears, plunging Israel and the region into fundamental crises?
Jonathan Panikoff, Director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, warns:
“Victory over the Islamic Republic, without a viable replacement, may simply swap tyranny for chaos.”
Is Israel prepared not just for regime collapse, but for what comes next?
Some Israeli intelligence and media circles have openly placed their hopes in Reza Pahlavi or monarchist forces as “predictable and pro-Western” replacements. But such scenarios are more political wishful thinking than strategic guarantees. The likely power vacuum after the regime’s fall could yield far more dangerous outcomes: armed resurgence of the People’s Mojahedin (MKO), who have significantly more military potential than monarchists; violent confrontations between monarchists and MKO members; ethnic and separatist conflicts in Kurdistan or Azerbaijan; and even direct intervention by Ilham Aliyev’s Azerbaijan—with Turkish military backing—to seize Iranian Azerbaijani territory.
Such scenarios do not serve Israel’s long-term interests and could lead to full-blown chaos in northwestern Iran and Iraqi Kurdistan. The outcome may not be a stable, anti-regime Iran aligned with Israel, but a fragmented, warlord-ridden state.
A Chatham House report underscores that post-collapse instability could empower secessionist and militant actors, especially in Iran’s western and northwestern provinces.
This raises another critical question: Could military success without a political strategy transform into a strategic failure?
Let’s not forget that some Israeli observers, particularly among the right-wing, still place hope in an American-oriented opposition—natural allies of IsraelIn the spring of 2025, a twelve-day war broke out between Israel and Iran—or more precisely, between Israel and the military, nuclear, and security infrastructure of the Islamic Republic. Although the war remained limited on the surface, it was a stark warning that the historic confrontation between these two irreconcilable enemies had entered a bold new phase. Israel’s attacks on sensitive facilities in Karaj, Isfahan, Dezful, and Tehran, along with targeted assassinations and cyber operations against Iran’s defence systems, all signalled that this time, Tel Aviv was not merely aiming to contain the Islamic Republic but planning to end its very existence.
This notion was reinforced when, during the attacks, Reza Pahlavi’s media activities intensified as if he were running an election campaign. He even travelled to Paris—the same city from which Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran in 1979 amid the Shah’s collapse. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly declared, “See you soon in Tehran,” and after the attacks began, he called on the Iranian people to rise up, explicitly confirming his aim of toppling the Islamic Republic.
On the surface, Israel seemed closer than ever to realizing one of its longstanding goals: weakening, destabilizing, and perhaps ultimately overthrowing a regime it views as an existential threat. But this potential victory carries a cost that has received little attention in Israel’s strategic calculations: the loss of Iran—not just the current regime, but the nation and its geopolitical identity.
While the Islamic Republic may soon collapse under economic pressure, internal discontent, and external attacks, the memory of Israeli aggression will be etched into the historical consciousness of Iranians as that of a destructive, intrusive, and humiliating force. The danger is that Israel, through its actions, may sever ties with a nation in such a way that even after the regime’s fall, reconciliation may be impossible.
This article addresses the fundamental question:
In seeking the Islamic Republic’s destruction, is Israel unintentionally sacrificing its own long-term future alongside a free and independent Iran?
Answering this requires reconsidering the trade-offs between short-term security and long-term interests, and distinguishing hostility toward a regime from hostility toward an entire nation.
“Mastery of Shadow War”
Over the past two decades, Israel has demonstrated unprecedented expertise in conducting intelligence operations, cyber warfare, and targeted assassinations—forms of conflict that blur the lines between war and peace, and between domestic and foreign territory. This “shadow war” has evolved from a complementary tactic to a full alternative to traditional military operations—an invisible war with high effectiveness.
Within this framework, Mossad has successfully infiltrated, disrupted, or destroyed some of the deepest and most secure elements of the Islamic Republic’s security structure. The assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (the architect of Iran’s nuclear program), explosions at Natanz, sabotage at facilities in Karaj and Isfahan, extraction of nuclear documents from the heart of Tehran, and cyber warfare against air defence infrastructure all point to a bold, precise, and cohesive strategy.
Beyond its operational capacity, Israel has succeeded in shattering the Islamic Republic’s intelligence prestige—something that has shaken internal structures and eroded its legitimacy among the public. For the first time, a regime that projected itself as an “impregnable fortress” has been revealed as a vulnerable and infiltratable entity.
According to RAND analysis, Mossad’s 2025 operations were conducted with unprecedented precision, targeting command and control structures deep within Iran, severely damaging the morale of the regime’s elite.
Additionally, by limiting Iran’s ability to respond, Israel has damaged the regime’s credibility without entering full-scale war. Its use of anti-regime proxy groups in Iraqi Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, and even inside Iran has kept costs low while returns remained high.
For Tel Aviv, these operations are not merely deterrents—they are deliberate steps toward containing, weakening, and ultimately collapsing a regime viewed as a potential nuclear threat, Hezbollah’s main patron, and a leading anti-Israel actor in the region.
But where tactical success peaks, the article’s core question emerges:
Does victory in this shadow war necessarily lead to a post-Islamic Republic Iran aligned with Israel? Or might these very victories plant seeds of long-term enmity that extend beyond the regime to the Iranian people themselves? Or worse—will the conflict leave Iran so fractured that even the idea of a unified nation disappears, plunging Israel and the region into fundamental crises?
Jonathan Panikoff, Director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, warns:
“Victory over the Islamic Republic, without a viable replacement, may simply swap tyranny for chaos.”
Is Israel prepared not just for regime collapse, but for what comes next?
Some Israeli intelligence and media circles have openly placed their hopes in Reza Pahlavi or monarchist forces as “predictable and pro-Western” replacements. But such scenarios are more political wishful thinking than strategic guarantees. The likely power vacuum after the regime’s fall could yield far more dangerous outcomes: armed resurgence of the People’s Mojahedin (MKO), who have significantly more military potential than monarchists; violent confrontations between monarchists and MKO members; ethnic and separatist conflicts in Kurdistan or Azerbaijan; and even direct intervention by Ilham Aliyev’s Azerbaijan—with Turkish military backing—to seize Iranian Azerbaijani territory.
Such scenarios do not serve Israel’s long-term interests and could lead to full-blown chaos in northwestern Iran and Iraqi Kurdistan. The outcome may not be a stable, anti-regime Iran aligned with Israel, but a fragmented, warlord-ridden state.
A Chatham House report underscores that post-collapse instability could empower secessionist and militant actors, especially in Iran’s western and northwestern provinces.
This raises another critical question: Could military success without a political strategy transform into a strategic failure?
Let’s not forget that some Israeli observers, particularly among the right-wing, still place hope in an American-oriented opposition—natural allies of Israel. They envision a secular, pro-Western, and less threatening Iranian government. But this vision is out of touch with realities on the ground and based on assumptions that lack evidence. There is no guarantee that regime collapse will empower pro-democratic, unified, or Western-aligned forces.
A more likely outcome is a power vacuum filled by armed groups—like MKO or Kurdish and Azeri separatists—and regional actors like Turkey and Azerbaijan seeking to redraw Iran’s borders
In such a scenario, “Iran” may cease to exist as a coherent political and national entity”.
Civil war in such an ethnically diverse and geographically fragile country, with a deep history of war and partition, could dismantle national identity and erode the very concept of an Iranian nation. And this is where Israel’s position is dramatically altered:
“Victory over Tehran may save Iran from the ayatollahs—but destroy it entirely.”
Israel Drowning in a Sea of Blood: The Second Wave of Islamic Revolutions
Any power vacuum stretching from Central Asia to the Middle East, the Arab world, and North Africa is likely to empower fundamentalist Muslims—Sunni or Shia. This is supported by a pattern that began in Iran in 1979 and has steadily grown. If only Iran was governed by Islamists in 1979, now forms of Islamic fundamentalism hold power in Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, and parts of Libya, while in Lebanon and Iraq, Shia allies of the Islamic Republic play key political roles. In Egypt and Central Asia, fundamentalist Muslims are increasingly poised to seize power.
While Israel focuses on precision sabotage, assassinations, and cyber warfare, a deeper transformation is unfolding in the region’s geopolitics—one that may not only neutralize Israel’s objectives in Iran, but threaten Israel’s very existence amid revolutionary Islamist currents.
The experiences of the 2011 Arab Spring—and even Iran’s 1979 revolution—demonstrate that movements promising democracy and reform often end with Islamists in power. The winners in these upheavals have been deeply anti-democratic institutions: the clergy, the military, or radical parties (Khomeini in Iran, Shiites and ISIS in Iraq, Houthis in Yemen, Ahmad al-Shara in Syria, Taliban in Afghanistan, and Egypt’s military after ousting Morsi).
Though often crushed by authoritarian regimes or foreign powers, the seeds of rage and desire for structural change remain alive—and could soon reemerge in a *second, deeper, more explosive wave*.
Recall that the Islamists who seized power in 1979 had once been brutally repressed in 1963.
The United States, the CIA, Mohammad Reza Shah, and MI6 orchestrated the 1953 coup in Iran against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh—an event that can be seen as one of the influential factors leading to the 1979 revolution, which ultimately changed the fate of Iran and the region, and created major challenges for both the U.S. and the West. Today, the military operations of Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza, Palestine, and now increasingly within Iran, are gradually paving the way for fundamental changes in the political geography of the region—and even Central Asia. Many Islamist fundamentalists across various countries are becoming more determined to gain political power, which will plunge an already crisis-ridden world into even deeper turmoil
In this future, **revolutions across the Middle East and North Africa—from the Gulf to Morocco and even Central Asia—may no longer be reformist, but radical, anti-Western, and deeply Islamic. In such a context, Israel would face strategic threats including:
“Geopolitical encirclement** by Islamic identity-based governments and movements”
* Elimination of the only historic-civilizational nation in the region (Iran)* with long-term coexistence potential with Israel
Widespread rise of anti-Israel sentiment not just among governments, but among Arab and Turkish societies
Iran is arguably the only Muslim-majority nation that could, post-Islamic Republic, become a strategic partner to Israel—not due to political dependence but because of shared cultural depth and historical potential. But Israel, by focusing solely on dismantling the regime and ignoring the opportunity to build ties with the Iranian people, risks losing this future partner forever.
In a region surrounded by revolution, weak institutions, and hostile ideologies, Israel must ask:
“Will destroying Iran result in a long-term weakening of Israeli security?”
“The Islamic Republic May Take the Region Down with It Before Dying”
All the scenarios discussed thus far—regime collapse, territorial fragmentation, power vacuums, and Israel’s encirclement—portray the Islamic Republic as passive and on the decline. But this view misses a key point: the reactive, violent, and apocalyptic nature of an ideological regime on the brink of collapse.
As *The Guardian* warned:
> “Analysts fear that as the Islamic Republic nears its end, it may unleash all remaining military and proxy assets in a wide retaliatory blaze.”
Unlike Saddam or Gaddafi, the Islamic Republic is first and foremost a militarized revolutionary project. Even during political collapse, its military core can remain cohesive long enough to lash out in revenge rather than surrender.
Before losing control, the regime may initiate actions that would reshape the region—or even beyond:
* Massive missile strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait
* Attacks on Saudi, Emirati, and Kuwaiti oil infrastructure dependent on Hormuz
* Closing—or threatening to close—the Strait of Hormuz, through which over 20% of global oil flows
* Direct missile attacks on Israel from Iranian territory, with high precision and volume
* Activation of regional proxies like Hezbollah, Hashd al-Shaabi, and Ansar Allah
This could push the region toward **not freedom and democracy—but chaos, global energy crises, and full-scale proxy wars**.
Worse still, if Israel succeeds in destroying the Islamic Republic, it may pay with massive infrastructure losses, thousands of casualties, and an uncontrollable regional war.
This is the flaw in Tel Aviv’s technocratic analyses, which often focus narrowly on Mossad’s precision or the IDF’s cyber capabilities.
As AP recently reported:
> “Post-conflict Iran faces its most severe internal crisis since 1979. Leadership is adrift, and security forces are under social and economic siege.”
**A dying enemy is far more dangerous than a living one.**. They envision a secular, pro-Western, and less threatening Iranian government. But this vision is out of touch with realities on the ground and based on assumptions that lack evidence. There is no guarantee that regime collapse will empower pro-democratic, unified, or Western-aligned forces.
A more likely outcome is a power vacuum filled by armed groups—like MKO or Kurdish and Azeri separatists—and regional actors like Turkey and Azerbaijan seeking to redraw Iran’s borders
In such a scenario, “Iran” may cease to exist as a coherent political and national entity”.
Civil war in such an ethnically diverse and geographically fragile country, with a deep history of war and partition, could dismantle national identity and erode the very concept of an Iranian nation. And this is where Israel’s position is dramatically altered:
“Victory over Tehran may save Iran from the ayatollahs—but destroy it entirely.”
Israel Drowning in a Sea of Blood: The Second Wave of Islamic Revolutions
Any power vacuum stretching from Central Asia to the Middle East, the Arab world, and North Africa is likely to empower fundamentalist Muslims—Sunni or Shia. This is supported by a pattern that began in Iran in 1979 and has steadily grown. If only Iran was governed by Islamists in 1979, now forms of Islamic fundamentalism hold power in Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, and parts of Libya, while in Lebanon and Iraq, Shia allies of the Islamic Republic play key political roles. In Egypt and Central Asia, fundamentalist Muslims are increasingly poised to seize power.
While Israel focuses on precision sabotage, assassinations, and cyber warfare, a deeper transformation is unfolding in the region’s geopolitics—one that may not only neutralize Israel’s objectives in Iran, but threaten Israel’s very existence amid revolutionary Islamist currents.
The experiences of the 2011 Arab Spring—and even Iran’s 1979 revolution—demonstrate that movements promising democracy and reform often end with Islamists in power. The winners in these upheavals have been deeply anti-democratic institutions: the clergy, the military, or radical parties (Khomeini in Iran, Shiites and ISIS in Iraq, Houthis in Yemen, Ahmad al-Shara in Syria, Taliban in Afghanistan, and Egypt’s military after ousting Morsi).
Though often crushed by authoritarian regimes or foreign powers, the seeds of rage and desire for structural change remain alive—and could soon reemerge in a *second, deeper, more explosive wave*.
Recall that the Islamists who seized power in 1979 had once been brutally repressed in 1963.
The United States, the CIA, Mohammad Reza Shah, and MI6 orchestrated the 1953 coup in Iran against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh—an event that can be seen as one of the influential factors leading to the 1979 revolution, which ultimately changed the fate of Iran and the region, and created major challenges for both the U.S. and the West. Today, the military operations of Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza, Palestine, and now increasingly within Iran, are gradually paving the way for fundamental changes in the political geography of the region—and even Central Asia. Many Islamist fundamentalists across various countries are becoming more determined to gain political power, which will plunge an already crisis-ridden world into even deeper turmoil
In this future, **revolutions across the Middle East and North Africa—from the Gulf to Morocco and even Central Asia—may no longer be reformist, but radical, anti-Western, and deeply Islamic. In such a context, Israel would face strategic threats including:
“Geopolitical encirclement** by Islamic identity-based governments and movements”
* Elimination of the only historic-civilizational nation in the region (Iran)* with long-term coexistence potential with Israel
Widespread rise of anti-Israel sentiment not just among governments, but among Arab and Turkish societies
Iran is arguably the only Muslim-majority nation that could, post-Islamic Republic, become a strategic partner to Israel—not due to political dependence but because of shared cultural depth and historical potential. But Israel, by focusing solely on dismantling the regime and ignoring the opportunity to build ties with the Iranian people, risks losing this future partner forever.
In a region surrounded by revolution, weak institutions, and hostile ideologies, Israel must ask:
“Will destroying Iran result in a long-term weakening of Israeli security?”
“The Islamic Republic May Take the Region Down with It Before Dying”
All the scenarios discussed thus far—regime collapse, territorial fragmentation, power vacuums, and Israel’s encirclement—portray the Islamic Republic as passive and on the decline. But this view misses a key point: the reactive, violent, and apocalyptic nature of an ideological regime on the brink of collapse.
As *The Guardian* warned:
> “Analysts fear that as the Islamic Republic nears its end, it may unleash all remaining military and proxy assets in a wide retaliatory blaze.”
Unlike Saddam or Gaddafi, the Islamic Republic is first and foremost a militarized revolutionary project. Even during political collapse, its military core can remain cohesive long enough to lash out in revenge rather than surrender.
Before losing control, the regime may initiate actions that would reshape the region—or even beyond:
* Massive missile strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait
* Attacks on Saudi, Emirati, and Kuwaiti oil infrastructure dependent on Hormuz
* Closing—or threatening to close—the Strait of Hormuz, through which over 20% of global oil flows
* Direct missile attacks on Israel from Iranian territory, with high precision and volume
* Activation of regional proxies like Hezbollah, Hashd al-Shaabi, and Ansar Allah
This could push the region toward **not freedom and democracy—but chaos, global energy crises, and full-scale proxy wars**.
Worse still, if Israel succeeds in destroying the Islamic Republic, it may pay with massive infrastructure losses, thousands of casualties, and an uncontrollable regional war.
This is the flaw in Tel Aviv’s technocratic analyses, which often focus narrowly on Mossad’s precision or the IDF’s cyber capabilities.
As AP recently reported:
> “Post-conflict Iran faces its most severe internal crisis since 1979. Leadership is adrift, and security forces are under social and economic siege.”
**A dying enemy is far more dangerous than a living one.**
کاوه فرزند ملت 
Leave a Reply