Welcome back to The Farda Briefing, an RFE/RL newsletter that tracks the key issues in Iran and explains why they matter.
I'm RFE/RL correspondent Kian Sharifi. In this edition, I’m looking at the debate on whether using force to bring about political change in Iran is realistic or misguided.
What You Need To Know
• Is Regime Change In Iran Israel’s End Goal? The question of whether Israel’s true objective in its current conflict with Iran is regime change -- beyond the stated aim of crippling Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities -- has become a central debate among analysts and observers. Critics say Israel’s pursuit of regime change in Iran, whether explicit or implicit, is a profound gamble with no guaranteed payoff. However, supporters argue that the clerical establishment is at its weakest, arguing that this presents a rare opportunity to topple the Islamic republic.
• Will The US Join The War? That’s the question on everyone’s minds, especially Iranians, after US President Donald Trump this week demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” He later said he “may” or “may not” join the war. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned Trump that the US would suffer “irreparable harm” if it were to get involved. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, meanwhile, continues to insist that Tehran is “committed to diplomacy.” Araqchi is reportedly traveling to Geneva to meet his counterparts from Britain, Germany, and France (E3). Meanwhile, large parts of Iran have faced an Internet blackout imposed by authorities amid Israeli air strikes and an information scramble.
• Why Israel Needs The US To Hit Fordow: The Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) is Iran’s nuclear insurance policy -- buried deep, heavily fortified, and nearly impossible to destroy without US involvement. Israel can’t do it alone, and even with America’s help, it’s a massive gamble with global consequences. Here’s a look at the Fordow facility and why it’s difficult to destroy.
The Big Issue
Forcing Change In Iran: The Case And The Cost
As the conflict between Israel and Iran intensifies, a pressing question looms: is military intervention in Iran a viable path to regime change?
While Israel has focused its efforts on Tehran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, the scale and rhetoric surrounding recent operations have prompted speculation that a broader goal -- toppling the Islamic republic -- may be in play.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior officials have stopped short of explicitly calling for regime change. Still, their language and the scope of action suggest that dismantling Iran’s current leadership could be a longer-term aspiration.
This possibility has ignited intense debate. While some view the Islamic republic as more vulnerable than ever, others warn that military intervention carries the risk of exacerbating instability, provoking regional escalation, and possibly strengthening Iran’s most hard-line factions.
Why It Matters: Military efforts alone may not be enough to unseat Iran’s entrenched leadership. Despite recurring nationwide protests -- most notably the 2022 uprising sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini -- the clerical establishment has proven both deeply unpopular and brutally resilient.
The protests revealed a deeply disillusioned public, but also demonstrated the Islamic republic’s readiness to use overwhelming force. More than 550 protesters were reportedly killed and over 20,000 arrested during the unrest, according to human rights organizations.
Advocates of external pressure argue that military action could create momentum for internal change. But without parallel efforts -- such as supporting Iranian opposition networks, expanding communication channels, or funding civil resistance -- military strikes may not be enough to tip the balance.
In the absence of a broader strategy, critics fear that foreign intervention could do more harm than good -- empowering hard-liners, delegitimizing homegrown dissent, and alienating ordinary Iranians.
What's Being Said: “There’s a lot of talk about regime change, but very little investment in the kind of infrastructure that would make it feasible,” said Ilan Berman, senior vice president at the American Foreign Policy Council and a board member of RFE/RL.
Speaking to RFE/RL's Radio Farda, Berman stressed that external support for Iranian opposition movements is a “necessary prerequisite” for any sustained uprising.
From inside the Iranian diaspora, opinions vary. Hamed Sheibani-Rad of the pro-monarchy Iran Novin Party framed the situation starkly: “Between Iran and the Islamic republic, only one will remain.” He views Israeli pressure as a rare and fleeting opportunity for change.
But others caution against conflating regime opposition with support for foreign military intervention. US-based defense analyst Hossein Aryan argued that strikes on Iran risk harming the very people who oppose the Islamic republic.
“Criticism of the Islamic republic is a domestic issue. The people of Iran don’t need a guardian abroad -- especially not someone like Netanyahu,” he told Radio Farda.
In the end, while Iran’s government appears increasingly fragile -- marked by low election turnout and persistent unrest -- most experts agree: lasting change will likely come from within. Military pressure may influence the timeline, but it is unlikely to be the catalyst for regime collapse on its own.
Expert Opinion: “[The] bottom line here is that the death of Khamenei won’t guarantee a better alternative -- the result could be an even more hard-line or militaristic regime,” says Nicole Grajewski, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
That's all from me for now.
Until next time,
Kian Sharifi
If you enjoyed this briefing and don't want to miss the next edition, subscribe here. It will be sent to your inbox every Friday.
