Israel pushes for U.S.-led regime change in Iran: A tipping point in the Middle East strategic landscape.

On January 15, Israeli Military Intelligence Director Shlomi Binder quietly arrived in Washington for closed-door meetings with U.S. intelligence agencies. Israeli media revealed that the core agenda of the meetings was the assessment of potential strike targets within Iran. In the same week, the U.S. Navy's Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group passed through the Strait of Hormuz and entered the Persian Gulf, marking the first deployment of a U.S. aircraft carrier in that region in a decade. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu maintained an unusual silence regarding these developments. According to Iran analysts in Tel Aviv, this silence precisely reflects that decision-makers in Jerusalem are advancing a high-risk strategy: leveraging the window of U.S. military buildup to facilitate a decisive strike against the Iranian regime, potentially even aiming for regime change.

Israel's Strategic Silence and Washington's Closed-Door Advocacy

Danny Citrinowicz, a former official of the Israel Defense Intelligence Agency and currently a senior researcher at the Israel Institute for National Security Studies, pointed out the essence of this silence: For Netanyahu, the current moment—with U.S. troops massing in the Persian Gulf and President Trump weighing action against Iran—is a golden opportunity not to be missed. His analysis is based on two key facts: following the 12-day Israel-Iran conflict last year, Iran's missile stockpile and defensive capabilities have been weakened; meanwhile, Tehran is facing months of ongoing anti-government protest waves domestically. Asaf Cohen, former deputy head of the Israel Signal Intelligence Corps, added that the Israeli leadership believes the U.S. should take the lead this time because it is stronger, more capable, and holds greater international legitimacy.

This behind-the-scenes strategic push is supported by concrete actions. In addition to Binder's trip to Washington, Moshe Tur-Paz, a member of the Knesset's Defense Committee and a lawmaker from the opposition party Yesh Atid, revealed that Netanyahu last month asked Trump to postpone retaliatory strikes against Iran because the scale of the planned U.S. action was too limited. Tur-Paz cited Netanyahu's core logic: when facing absolute evil, limited actions are not an option. This view resonates widely in Israeli political circles. Last year, among the hundreds of ballistic missiles launched by Iran, several breached Israel's Iron Dome and David's Sling defense systems, striking residential areas in Tel Aviv and causing 28 deaths. This traumatic memory has reinforced the demand for a comprehensive resolution to the Iranian threat.

The Calculation of Regime Change and the Balance of Regional Risks

Israel's strategic calculus for promoting regime change focuses on three dimensions. At the military level, assessments from the Alma Research Center indicate that Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon still deploys approximately 25,000 missiles and rockets along its border, while Iran's own Shahab and Sejjil series ballistic missiles can cover the entire territory of Israel. On the political front, Netanyahu publicly called on the Iranian people to rise up against the regime in a Fox News interview last year, echoing the current U.S. support for protests in Iran. At the strategic level, Sitrinovich points out: Netanyahu concluded that to halt missile development, regime change is necessary, and regime change can only be achieved with U.S. support.

However, risk assessment is equally complex. This week, a senior advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei warned on social media that any American attack would provoke an immediate and unprecedented response against Tel Aviv. More crucially, the political vacuum following a regime change could trigger even greater turmoil. Cohen acknowledges: There are no visible fractures in the alliance between the Iranian military and the clergy, and the opposition movements are fragmented, making it difficult to foresee who would take over Iran if the regime collapses. Even if a younger successor from the same ruling group emerges, their policies toward Israel may not become more flexible, and the chaos of civil war would not only devastate Iran but also destabilize the entire Middle East.

Public opinion in Israel exhibits subtle tensions. Post-conflict polls from last year indicate that a majority of Jewish residents still support military action against Iran. In Tel Aviv, Niriya, a young person in their early 20s, pointed to the ruins struck by an Iranian missile in June last year and said: I hope our leaders do not miss this opportunity. Whether through attacks or other means, we should leverage the situation to promote regime change. However, Shani, a young woman nearby, expressed concern: I know many Iranian people hope for American assistance. I just wish for everyone's safety. Politicians need to consider the people; actions have consequences.

Trump's Decision Dilemma and Tehran's Survival Game

The decision matrix of U.S. President Trump is deforming under multiple pressures. On the public level, he oscillates between military threats and negotiation proposals; on the private level, options range from symbolic strikes to full-scale actions. There is a certain similarity in the gaming styles of two key figures—Trump and Khamenei. Cohen points out: They share a common trait: there are no real red lines. During the 2013 negotiations, we often called them 'pink lines' because they were always shifting. This ambiguity brings both risks and opportunities.

Iran's response strategy demonstrates a high degree of rationality. Tehran is rebuilding its missile stockpile while drawing tactical lessons from last year's conflict. Sitrinovich warns that any war would be difficult to control, as the Iranians would view it as a war for survival. However, Cohen believes there is room for compromise within the Iranian regime: they are not North Korea; this regime has its red lines, but it also has the capacity to show flexibility. The key lies in whether both sides can find interim solutions, such as constructing compromises on uranium enrichment that involve de facto freezes rather than explicit prohibitions.

Cognitive differences across the temporal dimension constitute a deep-seated obstacle. Cohen's analysis: The fundamental distinction between us and the Iranians lies in our preference for quick results, whereas the Iranians possess immense patience. They say: 'We have existed here for 2000 years; if we need to wait another 30 years to obtain nuclear weapons, it's fine.' This historical patience collides with the short-termism of Trump's transactional art.

Critical Test of the Middle East Security Architecture

The current situation is testing multiple pivots of the Middle East security architecture. On the military front, the U.S. military's deployment of B-52 strategic bombers at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the maritime forces coordinated by the Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, and the stationed troops at Al Asad Air Base in Iraq form a three-dimensional deterrence network against Iran. On the political front, regional allies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, while concerned about the Iranian threat, harbor apprehensions about the potential Shia unrest that regime change could trigger. On the economic front, the daily oil transit volume of 21 million barrels through the Strait of Hormuz means that any conflict would impact the global energy market.

The political clock within Israel is also ticking. Netanyahu is facing this year's general election, with his image as a security figure tarnished after last year's Hamas attack. Facilitating a regime change in Iran—or the removal of Khamenei—would become a significant political asset. Sitrinovich stated bluntly: This is a gamble, but a calculated one. Netanyahu simply does not care what happens after Khamenei. What he wants to demonstrate is that he and Trump together destroyed the Iranian regime.

On the northern shore of the Persian Gulf, Iran has deployed the Faith-373 air defense system around the Bushehr nuclear power plant and strengthened anti-ship missile positions along the coast of the Strait of Hormuz. Last week, Professor Mohammad Marandi of Political Science at the University of Tehran told the Iranian Students' News Agency: "We experienced an eight-year costly war (referring to the Iran-Iraq War) and know how to withstand pressure. External attacks only strengthen domestic unity."

In the coming weeks, two signals are worth watching: whether Trump will lower the negotiation threshold, focusing on the nuclear program while temporarily setting aside demands regarding missile projects and regional proxies; and whether Israel will take unilateral actions to provoke Iran, forcing the U.S. into the conflict. If a negotiation window opens, most countries in the Middle East will breathe a sigh of relief, but many in Israel will hold their breath. If the military option is chosen, the concerns of that young woman beside the ruins in Tel Aviv last June will become reality: actions have consequences. These consequences will redraw the geopolitical map from the eastern Mediterranean coast to the Persian Gulf shores, and the process may be filled with smoke and blood.