Why Regime Change in Iran Is Unlikely: The Limits of Trump and Israel's Approach

• Why Regime Change in Iran Is Unlikely: The Limits of Trump and Israel's Approach

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been a central adversary for both the United States and Israel. Yet, few moments have been as aggressively confrontational as during Donald Trump's presidency. His "maximum pressure" campaign, combined with Israel's shadow war against Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure, aimed to destabilize the regime from within and pave the way for its collapse. However, despite the unprecedented sanctions, targeted assassinations, and widespread international isolation, the Islamic Republic remains firmly in power. This raises a critical question: Why has regime change in Iran remained elusive despite such intense external pressure?

1. Maximum Pressure, Minimal Results

Donald Trump’s administration withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 and re-imposed harsh sanctions under the "maximum pressure" doctrine. The idea was that crippling Iran’s economy would lead to widespread public dissatisfaction, mass protests, and eventually internal collapse.

But while Iran’s economy has suffered tremendously — with inflation, currency devaluation, and widespread unemployment — the regime has shown remarkable resilience. The sanctions, rather than breaking the back of the state, have created a “siege mentality,” enabling the regime to rally nationalist support. For many Iranians, the economic suffering is seen not just as a failure of their own government, but as a result of unjust foreign aggression.

2. Assassinations and Covert Operations: Tactical Success, Strategic Failure

Israel, often with American backing, has carried out a covert campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear program and military capabilities. The assassinations of top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh and IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani are among the most high-profile operations intended to destabilize Tehran's hardline leadership.

Yet these moves, while tactically effective in damaging Iran’s capabilities, did not translate into strategic success. Iran responded by doubling down on its nuclear program, increasing uranium enrichment far beyond JCPOA limits. Domestically, these attacks were portrayed as national tragedies, galvanizing internal support rather than fomenting dissent.

Rather than weakening the regime, external aggression has repeatedly provided the government with the opportunity to cast itself as the protector of Iranian sovereignty against foreign enemies.

3. Misreading the Iranian Public

One of the key miscalculations of the Trump-Netanyahu strategy was the assumption that Iranians, suffering under economic duress, would rise up en masse to overthrow their government — especially if encouraged by strong Western backing.

While protests have occurred (notably in 2017-2018, November 2019, and during the 2022 "Woman, Life, Freedom" movement), they have not developed into a sustained nationwide revolution. This is in part because many Iranians fear that a power vacuum could lead to a civil war similar to what befell Syria, Iraq, or Libya. The memory of instability in the region has led to a cautious, even reluctant, posture among much of the population.

Moreover, the lack of a unified opposition — with exiled monarchists, leftists, reformists, and Kurdish and Baloch separatists all pulling in different directions — means there is no cohesive alternative to the current regime.

4. Internal Control Remains Tight

Iran’s internal security infrastructure is among the most sophisticated in the Middle East. The IRGC, the Ministry of Intelligence, and the Basij militia have an extensive reach into every aspect of Iranian society. These institutions have grown stronger, not weaker, since the imposition of U.S. and Israeli pressure.

Following each wave of protest, the regime has not only cracked down violently, but also adapted — including reshuffling leadership, introducing surveillance technology, and even making cosmetic reforms to manage discontent. Far from crumbling, the state apparatus has become more hardened and ideologically entrenched.

5. International Context Has Shifted

One major limitation of the Trump-Netanyahu approach is that it failed to account for shifting global dynamics. While the West hoped for Iran’s isolation, China and Russia stepped in to deepen their economic and military ties with Tehran. Iran has joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and signed a 25-year cooperation agreement with China, which dilutes the impact of U.S. sanctions.

Moreover, after Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA, America's credibility as a negotiating partner suffered. This has given Iranian hardliners justification to reject diplomacy and align more closely with Eastern powers.

6. Trump’s Legacy Undermined Diplomacy

Trump's policy alienated European allies, fractured the global consensus, and left a legacy that President Biden has struggled to undo. Iran’s leadership sees regime change as a long-term Western goal and views any negotiations as a trap — an attitude reinforced by Trump’s rejection of an internationally agreed deal. The result is an entrenched distrust that makes diplomatic re-engagement difficult.

Conclusion: Pressure Without Power

The Iranian regime is not invincible, but it is far from fragile. The strategies pursued by the Trump administration and Israel, while disruptive, failed to generate the internal momentum needed for regime change. Instead of weakening the regime’s grip on power, they reinforced it.

What Trump and Israel underestimated was the adaptability of the Islamic Republic,the caution of the Iranian people, and the regime’s ability to turn external threats into internal legitimacy. Without a credible alternative leadership, internal unity, or a clear vision for post-regime Iran, the dream of regime change remains just that — a dream, not a policy.