US, Israel stare at a core goal slipping away in Iran

The Iran war began with bold rhetoric and sweeping ambitions. Nearly a month later, the reality looks far more constrained. What was once framed as a campaign that could shake the foundations of Iran’s ruling system is increasingly being recast as a slower, more uncertain effort, with regime change no longer within immediate reach.

In fact, the war that was meant to hasten the fall of Iran’s leadership may be doing the opposite. Instead of pushing a fragile system over the edge, the US-Israeli campaign risks stabilising a regime that had been showing signs of strain.

Also Read: Trump's Iran war pushes India to rekindle old friendship with Russia

From expectation of collapse to unintended effect

At the outset, leaders in the US and Israel spoke of creating the conditions for the collapse of the Islamic Republic. Benjamin Netanyahu framed the conflict as an opportunity for Iranians to rise up, while Trump hinted at transformative outcomes. But even early on, Israeli military officials were far less convinced. “The military told the government, ‘This isn’t going to be bang and we’re done,’” one person familiar with Israeli government deliberations told the Financial Times. “Regime change was always going to be very, very, very, very hard.”

Now that scepticism is hardening into consensus. Two people familiar with Israeli intelligence assessments told FT that the war has not created the conditions necessary to topple the regime in the near term.

A war that may be reinforcing the regime

Crucially, analysts have told The Times of Israel that the conflict may be achieving the opposite of its intended political effect. Rather than accelerating collapse, the external assault appears to be reducing the likelihood of it in the short term by rallying the system and suppressing internal dissent.

Also Read: Trump's Iran war tests MAGA 'America First' creed

Jack A. Goldstone, Hazel Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, told The Times of Israel that foreign attacks often strengthen embattled regimes by triggering nationalist solidarity. Under such pressure, populations tend to close ranks, making protests and elite defections less likely. Goldstone stressed that revolutions depend on visible cracks within the ruling elite and sustained mobilisation from below, both of which become harder to sustain during wartime conditions. In that sense, a regime that may have been teetering before the conflict can regain a degree of stability once it is under external threat.

Resilience despite sustained pressure

On the battlefield, the results reflect that pattern. Despite intense bombardment and the killing of top leadership figures, Iran’s governing system has held together. “The regime has been weakened, but we have not seen desertions or cracks emerging... or any real indication of a loss of control,” Raz Zimmt, a former Iran specialist with the Israel Defense Forces’ intelligence directorate Aman, now at Tel Aviv’s Institute for National Security Studies, told FT. “It shows the resilience of a system which was built over 47 years to survive.”

This resilience, analysts suggest, is not accidental but structural, reinforced in moments of crisis rather than undone by them.

Decapitation without collapse

The opening phase of the war was designed to destabilise Iran at the top. Strikes eliminated senior figures, including the supreme leader Ali Khamenei, and later targeted influential insiders such as Ali Larijani. At the same time, Israeli planners envisioned a broader effort combining air power with covert operations. Mossad was tasked with fomenting unrest and supporting Kurdish militias, according to a person familiar with strategic discussions who spoke to the Financial Times. The aim was to spark protests and internal fragmentation.

Yet that chain reaction has not materialised. “The aerial campaign had yet to measurably erode the Iranian regime’s hold on power,” one person briefed on intelligence assessments told FT.

Goldstone’s analysis again offers an explanation. He said that removing top leaders does not necessarily produce collapse in systems designed for continuity. Instead, it can lead remaining elites to consolidate power more tightly, especially under external attack.

A quiet recalibration of goals

Public rhetoric is shifting accordingly. While Trump had earlier entertained regime change, he is now signalling a desire to wind down hostilities. Israeli officials have also grown more cautious. Senior officers no longer frame the war in terms of toppling the regime, instead describing it as an effort to degrade Iran’s military capabilities.

Still, Netanyahu continues to present regime change as a longer-term aim. “We can create the conditions, but they have to exploit those conditions,” he said.

Behind the scenes, officials are adjusting expectations. Rather than imminent collapse, regime change is now seen as a gradual process tied to economic decline and political erosion. “The collapse of a regime doesn’t take minutes, hours, or days — it’s a process,” another person briefed on the situation told FT.

But even that longer-term outlook is uncertain. As Goldstone said, durable political change ultimately depends on internal fractures, not external force. Without those cracks, pressure from abroad may delay rather than hasten the very outcome it seeks. For now, the contradiction is clear. A war launched in part to bring down Iran’s leadership may instead be helping it hold on, leaving the US and Israel confronting a core goal that is not just distant, but increasingly elusive.