Israeli Security Sources Admit No Clear Regime Change Strategy in Iran Bombing Campaign
Multiple Israeli security sources have revealed that Israel launched its extensive bombing campaign against Iran without a realistic plan for regime change, describing expectations that airstrikes could trigger a popular uprising as "wishful thinking" rather than intelligence-based strategy.
The Nuclear Litmus Test: 440kg of Enriched Uranium
As Iran survives nearly two weeks of intensive bombing raids and the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, former and serving Israeli defence and intelligence officials say the ultimate measure of success may depend on the fate of 440kg of enriched uranium buried under a mountain by US strikes last June. This material, enough for more than ten nuclear warheads, represents what one former senior Israeli defence official called "one of the clearest litmus tests for how this war ends."
"We need to be in a position where either this material is out of Iran, or you have a regime where you are confident that it is safeguarded in a very meaningful way," the former official emphasized, highlighting the critical importance of this nuclear material to the conflict's outcome.
Regime Change Expectations Based on 'Wishful Thinking'
Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former US President Donald Trump launching the war with calls for regime change, turning the conflict into an existential struggle for Iran's rulers, Israeli intelligence sources now admit they never had a viable plan to achieve this through aerial bombardment alone.
"It's wishful thinking," said one intelligence source familiar with the planning. "We used to have a plan how to take out the ballistic missiles, how to deal with the nuclear sites, how to take care of the military industry in Iran. But I never heard that we knew how to do a campaign of regime change from the air."
Sima Shine, an Iran specialist and former head of research at Israel's Mossad intelligence agency, echoed this assessment: "I belong to those who don't think that regime change can happen from bombing from the outside." However, she acknowledged that the longer-term security and economic impacts of the bombing campaign might eventually lead to governmental collapse.
The Succession Question and Nuclear Uncertainty
The assassination of Ali Khamenei has introduced significant uncertainty regarding Iran's nuclear intentions. While Khamenei poured resources into a nuclear program that could be converted to military use, he consistently held back from ordering actual weapon construction. His son and successor, Mojtaba Khamenei, presents a different calculation entirely.
"With Ali Khamenei we knew almost everything about his decision making," explained another former senior intelligence official. "He was doing a lot of things we were concerned about, and that's why there was a war. But he never took the decision to run to a bomb no matter what. With Mojtaba, I am not so sure we have the knowledge to assess what he will do with the nuclear programme. He could run to a bomb right now."
Military Successes Versus Strategic Limitations
Despite the lack of a regime change strategy, the bombing campaign has achieved significant tactical successes. Nearly two weeks of airstrikes have destroyed or degraded much of Iran's military capacity, including missiles, launchers, and the industrial supply chains that produced them, along with political leaders, military commanders, academics, and engineers.
"The IDF are on the verge of concluding this campaign," said one source. "They are not going to say this, because it's a political directive when it will end, but from a military point of view they've fulfilled almost all the mission. Two weeks, and it's over after that."
Yet this military dominance comes with strategic limitations. Joab Rosenberg, former deputy head of Israel's military intelligence research division, warned that any conclusion leaving uranium in Iranian hands would represent a pyrrhic victory: "The worst result of this war will be the declaration of victory leaving the Iranian regime weak with 450kg of enriched uranium in its hands. So they will 100% be going for a nuclear bomb and our victory will become our loss."
The Post-October 7 Security Paradigm
Multiple Israeli defence and intelligence officials attribute the aggressive approach to the lasting impact of the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attacks. Israel's military has since prioritized removing immediate threats as quickly as possible, even at the expense of longer-term strategic considerations.
"After October 7, Israel is not the same state it used to be before," one official explained. "The policy changed completely. There is zero tolerance, about 70 or 80% of Israelis are not willing to accept any bullshit from our adversaries that want to kill us. The first priority of the IDF is to protect our families... then we will deal with all the rest."
This shift has led to what another former senior official described as Israel's inability to capitalize on military achievements: "Israel is not willing or able to capitalise on its dramatic military achievements by trying to move to the more political aspect of building new alliances. I am fearful we will still be stuck in this place."
The High-Risk Nuclear Calculus
The United States is reportedly considering an extremely high-risk mission to secure the enriched uranium, recognizing its critical importance to the conflict's outcome. Pre-war negotiations had included proposals for Iran to surrender the material to another country, but these diplomatic avenues have been overtaken by military action.
"It's a high-risk game this war, because if it succeeds, it would completely change the Middle East for the best," the former senior defence official noted. "But if we bomb everything and the regime stays in power, and they continue to maintain those 400kg of uranium, I think we will be starting the countdown to an attempt by Iran to go to a nuclear weapon."
As oil prices spiral and regional economies destabilize under the weight of asymmetric attacks, Israel's embrace of military power as the primary path to security risks leaving the nation increasingly isolated both regionally and internationally, even as it achieves tactical military dominance over a distant adversary.
