Note: The following article was originally published in the Jerusalem Post.
The latest series of airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities may have temporarily disrupted Tehran’s ambitions but not ended them. As with Iraq before 2003, tactical strikes alone cannot neutralize a strategic threat because Tehran remains ideologically committed to acquiring a nuclear weapon. Preventing this outcome requires more than containment—it demands a serious effort to remove the regime that pursues it.
The destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan by the United States marks a significant blow to the Ayatollah regime’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Operation Midnight Hammer, carried out by 120 aircraft including several U.S. B-2 bombers on June 22, targeted these sites in a coordinated strike. This followed Israel’s Operation Rising Lion, which paved the way for aerial dominance by neutralizing Iran’s air defense and striking critical military infrastructure. American and Israeli intelligence assessments confirm substantial damage, indicating the strikes have set Iran’s nuclear program back by a couple years.
However, the damage inflicted by these air campaigns has not entirely eliminated Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Assessments by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials highlight that Iran might have successfully dispersed critical material such as 408 kg of enriched uranium to different locations prior to the attacks. This points to a high likelihood that Iran could recover and resume nuclear development in the near future.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions continue to threaten both Israel’s national security and broader regional stability. Since the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979, the regime in Tehran has devoted itself to the ideological elimination of Zionism. This conviction is rooted in the doctrine of velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the jurist) and expressed through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which serves as both an enforcer of the regime’s ideology and a patron of international terrorism. The IRGC has fueled violence and destabilization across the Middle East through its operations in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and the West Bank. Its direct support for the October 7 attack against Israel is just one of many examples of the regime’s enduring extremism and hostility toward the Jewish people.
For decades, the Ayatollah regime has devoted substantial resources to developing a nuclear weapon of mass destruction under the guise of peaceful energy production. This fanatical pursuit is routinely framed for Western audiences as a defensive measure or an energy initiative, but nothing could be further from the truth. A long history of deception, dating back to the 1990s and predating the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), reveals a regime intent on advancing a theocratic doomsday vision. Repeated violations of nonproliferation commitments, documented by IAEA inspector reports and corroborated by Western intelligence assessments, underscore this agenda. The IAEA’s most recent report from June 12, once again confirms Iran’s failure to comply with peaceful nuclear development requirements.
Recently, the Iranian parliament voted to end cooperation with the IAEA, signaling a decisive departure from the illusion of peaceful cooperation. Intelligence assessments from the European Union and a low-confidence evaluation by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) suggest that Iran’s nuclear program remains active and can be quickly reconstituted.
Iran now finds itself in a position strikingly similar to Iraq in 1998. After engaging in a prolonged campaign of deception with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), Saddam Hussein effectively forced the withdrawal of weapons inspectors in December of that year. In response, a joint U.S. and U.K. aerial campaign under Operation Desert Fox launched to force Saddam’s regime back into compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 687 by targeting key WMD sites across the country.
Saddam’s regime had gone so far as to establish an entire ministry dedicated to deceiving weapons inspectors. In the years that followed, Saddam Hussein refused to allow inspectors to return, maintaining strategic ambiguity to deter Iran and suppress internal dissent. This prolonged standoff with the international community continued until the adoption of UNSC Resolution 1441 in 2002. The lesson is clear: airstrikes alone failed to bring the regime into compliance and instead emboldened its fanaticism and defiance.
Iran has studied Iraq’s playbook—and improved upon it. Tehran has become more adept at evading international pressure. It is now at a significantly more advanced stage, increasingly insulated and ideologically driven in its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Confronting this reality is essential to preventing a theocratic regime from acquiring such a capability. Israel has taken substantial steps to weaken Hezbollah, Hamas, and Shiite militias abroad, including targeting senior IRGC officials within Iran through military operations. However, these efforts alone are insufficient to bring about regime change and a coherent strategy that supports internal political transformation must now be actively pursued.
There is currently no unified internal opposition in Iran capable of mounting an effective challenge to the regime but an opposition with the potential to do so could and should be cultivated in solidarity with the Iranian people. This begins with efforts to weaken the regime’s domestic repression infrastructure, specifically the IRGC’s Basij that is tasked with crushing dissent. The Basij plays a central role in suppressing civil liberties and enabling gender-based violence. Undermining this apparatus would help create the space necessary for broader organization and resistance.
Support should also be extended to armed resistance movements in Iran’s ethnic periphery. Kurdish groups such as the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI), Free Life Party (PJAK), Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK), and Komala remain active in western Iran (Rojhelat), while Baluchi groups in the southeast continue to resist Tehran’s control. Although these groups possess local organization and arms, they lack the capacity to operate beyond their ethnic enclaves. Strategic outreach and coordination with these movements could serve as a foundation for a more cohesive, nationwide opposition.
While some members of the Iranian diaspora support exiled opposition figures such as Reza Pahlavi or Maryam Rajavi, these individuals lack meaningful support within Iran and are unlikely to serve as viable alternatives to the current regime. In the absence of unified and credible domestic opposition, alternative strategies for facilitating change must be followed.
Coordination between the United States, Israel, European partners, and Iranian reformers is essential to addressing the absence of a viable internal opposition. Just as the United States passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 to support dissidents opposing Saddam Hussein, a similar Iranian Liberation Act should be established to assist pro-democracy movements within Iran. This would involve fostering grassroots activism and helping to form an organized political opposition, akin to the role once played by the Iraqi National Congress. Through financial assistance, logistical support, and diplomatic outreach, the objective would be to identify and empower democratic and secular alternatives to the current regime.
A legitimate domestic opposition capable of assuming power in the event of the regime’s collapse is essential to preventing Iran from descending into chaos. This is not only a strategic imperative but also a moral one, as the current regime has demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice national stability in pursuit of its ideological goals. The urgency of curtailing Tehran’s fanatical domestic and regional ambitions demands coordinated international action.
A renewed nuclear deal will not halt the regime’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon because rewarding Tehran with financial incentives after its military infrastructure has been severely degraded sends the wrong message. The Obama administration’s JCPOA enabled Iran to recover, expand its ballistic missile and nuclear programs, and increase support for proxy forces across the region. The Trump administration should not fall into the same trap, nor should European governments, by repeating a provably failed approach.
The complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear program cannot come without the removal of the regime that pursues it. Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are ingrained in an ideological drive to destroy Israel. Limited airstrikes by Israel or the United States will not be sufficient to dismantle this threat—a strategy aimed at facilitating regime change in Tehran must be pursued in earnest. This will require a coordinated and concerted effort by Washington, Jerusalem, and other governments to empower the Iranian people to rise up against the regime that rules.
Only with the regime’s removal can lasting regional security be established.
Written by Anthony Avice Du Buisson (07/07/2025)
