Regime on the Brink: How Israel’s Offensive Is Reshaping Iran’s Fate

By IndraStra Global Editorial Team

Cover Image Attribute: Crowds gather in Tehran to protest Trump’s threats against Iran and its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, on June 18, 2025. / Source: Fars News / Hadi Hirbovash

The Islamic Republic of Iran stands at a fragile tipping point, its theocratic foundation shaken by a relentless Israeli military campaign that has exposed the regime’s vulnerabilities and fractured its long-standing social contract with its people. For nearly half a century, Iran’s rulers have promised security in exchange for curtailed political, social, and economic freedoms. But Israel’s recent strikes, which began on June 12, 2025, have shattered that promise, killing top military commanders, damaging nuclear and energy infrastructure, and sowing fear among ordinary Iranians. The regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, faces an existential crisis, grappling with internal dissent, economic collapse, and the specter of external intervention. Yet, while the assaults have weakened Tehran’s grip, the path to regime collapse—or transformation— remains fraught with uncertainty, shaped by Iran’s resilient security apparatus, deep-seated nationalism, and the absence of a cohesive opposition.
Israel’s campaign has been methodical and devastating, targeting the pillars of Iran’s power. The strikes have decimated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), eliminating key figures like Mohammad Bagheri, the armed forces chief of staff, and Hossein Salami, the IRGC’s commander-in-chief. General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the architect of Iran’s missile strategy, was also killed, leaving a void in the regime’s military expertise. These losses, coupled with the destruction of air defenses, missile stockpiles, and nuclear enrichment facilities, have stripped Iran of its deterrence capabilities. “The Islamic Republic is, in essence, losing control of what is going on inside Iran, on at least the symbolic level,” said Rasmus Christian Elling, an associate professor of Iranian studies at the University of Copenhagen. The regime’s inability to protect its skies or its leaders has laid bare its fragility, undermining the narrative of invincibility it has cultivated since the 1979 revolution.
The social contract, described by Ellie Geranmayeh of the European Council on Foreign Relations as “anchored on this promise of security from the state,” is now in tatters. For decades, Iranians have endured restricted rights, accepting the tradeoff for stability. But Israel’s strikes have upended this bargain, forcing tens of thousands to flee Tehran and shutting down schools, factories, and pharmaceutical plants. The Iranian rial has lost 13% of its value since the attacks began, exacerbating an economy already crippled by a 45% GDP decline since 2012 and rampant inflation. Protests, which were already simmering before the war—nurses, teachers, and merchants had taken to the streets over delayed payments and economic hardship—are now overshadowed by the immediate threat of survival. “Most Iranians at the moment are too busy trying to escape Israel’s airstrikes,” Geranmayeh noted, suggesting that the bombardment may stifle rather than ignite organized dissent.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has articulated two goals: destroying Iran’s nuclear program and fomenting regime change. The former appears more achievable, though not without challenges. Israel has damaged key nuclear sites, but facilities like Fordow, buried deep underground, remain difficult to destroy completely. Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has highlighted Fordow’s inaccessibility, noting it lies “about half a mile underground, beneath a mountain.” While Israel could disrupt operations by targeting entrances or ventilation shafts, a permanent solution would require special forces operations—a risky endeavor. Moreover, Iran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, sufficient for up to ten nuclear bombs if further refined, remains a wildcard. If Israel fails to secure or eliminate this stockpile, Iran could reconstitute its program in time, potentially withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and pursuing a nuclear breakout to deter future attacks.
Netanyahu’s second aim—regime change—is far more elusive. He has suggested that Iran’s remaining leaders are “packing their bags,” but provided no evidence. While the regime is deeply unpopular, its security services have a proven track record of crushing dissent, as seen in the brutal suppression of the 2022 “Women, Life, Freedom” protests following Mahsa Amini’s death. “The regime has survived many challenges since coming to power in 1979, including war with Iraq in the 1980s and massive sanctions,” one analysis noted, attesting to its resilience. Iran’s internet restrictions and arrests of social media users accused of supporting Israel—five were detained in Yazd for “attempting to disturb public opinion”—further limit the space for opposition. Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution emphasized Iran’s “fiercely nationalistic” character, noting that foreign intervention, like Israel’s strikes, often triggers distrust rather than solidarity with external actors. “Iranians are very well understood to resent their government,” she said, but their “bitter experience with foreign meddling” since the 1953 U.S.-British coup makes them wary of outside interference.
The regime’s vulnerabilities, however, cannot be ignored. Israel’s intelligence penetration, demonstrated by its ability to assassinate commanders and scientists inside their homes, has humiliated the IRGC, which has resorted to a propaganda offensive claiming to have arrested Israeli “agents and mercenaries” without substantiating evidence. An Israeli military official dismissed these claims as “fake” and part of Iran’s misinformation campaign “to create the appearance of success.” The loss of senior commanders has eroded the trust and influence they held within the regime, and their replacements lack the same clout as Khamenei. Lina Khatib of Chatham House suggested that these weaknesses could fuel “an elite coup,” driven by internal power struggles rather than a popular uprising. Such a coup might usher in an even more authoritarian regime, potentially dominated by hard-line IRGC factions favoring a nuclear weapon to deter Israel.
Khamenei’s response has been defiant but hollow. In a televised address, he denounced U.S. President Donald Trump’s “threatening and vulgar” remarks and vowed resistance, asserting, “The United States must know that our people will not surrender, and any military intervention by them will lead to irreparable consequences.” Yet, his regime’s strategic miscalculations have compounded its predicament. Iran’s hard-liners, emboldened by their regional influence before October 2023, overreached by escalating proxy attacks after Hamas’s assault on Israel. The subsequent collapse of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria’s Assad regime—key components of Iran’s deterrence architecture—left Tehran exposed. Iran’s direct missile strikes on Israel in April and October 2024, intended to showcase strength, instead revealed its military limitations, as U.S. and Israeli defenses neutralized most of the barrage. “The foundation of Iran’s deterrence strategy crumbled,” one analysis concluded, paving the way for Israel’s devastating retaliation.
The international ramifications of Iran’s crisis are significant, particularly for Russia, a key ally. Moscow, preoccupied with its war in Ukraine, has adopted a cautious stance, unwilling to risk confrontation with Israel or the U.S. “It has long been clear that Russia wouldn’t defend Iran militarily,” said Nikita Smagin, an expert on Russia-Iran ties. A regime collapse would deal a “strategic and reputational blow” to Russia, worse than the fall of Assad, according to a Russian source with foreign ministry ties. Russia has invested heavily in Iran’s energy and infrastructure, and a U.S.-aligned Middle East would undermine Moscow’s geopolitical ambitions. Yet, Russia’s muted response—criticizing Israel but offering no tangible support—reflects its prioritization of Ukraine and warming ties with the Trump administration.
Several scenarios could unfold for Iran’s future. In one, the regime survives, agrees to halt its nuclear program in exchange for U.S. sanctions relief, and limps along as a weakened theocracy. Another envisions a total collapse, with factions—hard-line Islamists, popular uprising leaders, or even Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the former Shah—vying for power. A third possibility is a chaotic civil war, with ethnic minorities like Arabs, Azeris, Kurds, and Baluch exploiting the vacuum. A nuclear breakout remains a wild card, with Khamenei potentially seeking a weapon to restore deterrence, though this risks isolating Iran further, akin to North Korea. “If the government secures a nuclear weapon to safeguard its hold on power, Iran could end up looking quite a lot like North Korea—a scenario no Iranian would want,” one analysis warned.
Iranian voices reflect this uncertainty. Reza Pahlavi sees opportunity, declaring on X that the regime is “at its weakest point” and urging Iranians to seize the moment for democracy. Nobel laureates Shirin Ebadi and Narges Mohammadi, alongside other activists, called for an end to uranium enrichment and a transition to democracy, denouncing attacks on civilians by both sides. “Deeply committed to Iran’s territorial integrity and the inalienable right of its people to self-determination under genuine sovereignty, we believe that continuing uranium enrichment and the devastating war neither serves the Iranian people nor humanity at large,” they wrote. Conversely, imprisoned reformist Mostafa Tajzadeh condemned Israel’s strikes as “the aggression of a foreign army,” warning that even if they topple the regime, “Iran will be left in ruins, where most likely statelessness and chaos will prevail.”
The regime’s reformist president, Masoud Pezeshkian, is also weakened, his outreach to the West for sanctions relief undermined by the war. Hard-liners, too, face scrutiny for failing to protect Iran, leaving the system “under immense strain since neither reform nor force is working,” according to Mostafa Pakzad, a geopolitical consultant. The absence of a clear successor to Khamenei, whose presumed heir Ebrahim Raisi died in a 2024 helicopter crash, adds to the instability. His son is a contender, but a military takeover by hard-liners remains plausible. “If Khamenei were to die for one reason or another in the middle of this war, in order to prevent a vacuum, the Revolutionary Guard and all the regular military would step in and take control of the situation,” Elling said.
Israel’s campaign carries risks. Strikes on civilian targets could trigger a “rally around the flag” effect, bolstering the regime’s narrative as Iran’s defender. “Images of devastation in civilian areas and the deaths of innocent people are making Iranians—who are inherently patriotic and emotionally connected to their nation—quite uneasy about Israel’s ultimate intentions,” said Hamidreza Azizi, a former professor at Iran’s Shahid Beheshti University. Moreover, a collapsed Iran could destabilize the region, creating a power vacuum that fuels ethnic separatism or empowers a more belligerent regime. “Be careful what you wish for. An Iran that is racked by violence and chaos is not going to be a better neighbor,” Maloney cautioned.
As Iran reels, the U.S. faces a delicate balancing act. Trump has avoided endorsing regime change, wary of repeating past interventions like Iraq. His administration presses for a nuclear deal, but Netanyahu’s opposition and Israel’s ongoing campaign complicate diplomacy. Daniel Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, urged a focus on disabling Iran’s nuclear and missile programs rather than regime change, warning that the latter is a “massive undertaking” with unpredictable outcomes. “The memory is very heavy of what happened to us in Iraq,” he said.

At the time of writing, Iran’s theocracy — battered but not yet broken — stands at a defining moment. Its capacity to restore security, revive its economy, and manage deepening internal divisions will decide whether the regime endures, evolves, or unravels. For now, it clings to power, but the fractures in its foundation are unmistakable, and the nation’s future hangs in the balance.

With reporting by The Conversation, NBC News, The Wall Street Journal, and Reuters

IndraStra Global is now available on
Apple News, Google News, Feedly, Flipboard, and  WhatsApp Channel

COPYRIGHT: This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

REPUBLISH: Republish our articles online or in print for free if you follow these guidelines. https://www.indrastra.com/p/republish-us.html