The US and Israel could topple the Iranian regime. They should choose negotiation instead
The US has joined Israel’s attacks against Iran — and regime change, in one form or another, is likely to follow
President Donald Trump addresses the nation after U.S. strikes on Iran on June 21, with Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth appearing alongside. Photo by Carlos Barria/Reuters/Bloomberg
Columnist Dan Perry June 21, 2025
The United States has joined Israel in striking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Now, the question is whether the U.S. and Israel will be allowed to take the win and pivot to diplomacy — or whether Tehran’s response might force an all-out war, with regime change in Iran no longer a theoretical concept, but rather an operational objective.
President Donald Trump, in a Saturday night news conference, called Iran “the number one state sponsor of terror” and claimed that, after the U.S. strikes, its major nuclear sites have been “completely and totally obliterated.” He said that “Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace” — else ” there will be tragedy for Iran.” Trump also said he worked with Israel’s leadership “as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before.”
If Iran does not try to fight back — a big if — we are looking at an Israeli-American victory that may rehabilitate the embattled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reset the strategic equation in the Middle East, and weaken the Islamic Republic to the point that its existence may be endangered. But if Iran retaliates, the more likely outcome is a U.S.-Israeli war aimed at toppling the Iranian regime.
It is clear that from Trump’s perspective — and, almost certainly, Israel’s —the goal is now to get Iran to talk terms of surrender. These negotiations would involve not just an end to Iran’s nuclear ambition, but also to the ring of terror — Islamic militias including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis — that Iran has for decades built around Israel.
From the beginning, Israel’s strategy in attacking Iran was aimed at getting the U.S. to strike the nuclear enrichment plant at Fordow, which is embedded so deep underground that only American bunker-busting bombs could possibly disable it. That has now happened, according to Trump, and the U.S. is calling for peace.
The Islamic Republic — the theocratic outfit that seized Iran in 1979 — has spent decades destabilizing the Middle East. It has poured billions into funding jihadist militias across the region, all while pursuing a nuclear weapons program under the flimsiest civilian pretext.
Iran’s rulers have held their own people hostage, devastated neighboring nations, and ignored countless diplomatic overtures. Now, after unprecedented strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and military assets, much of their imperial project lies in ruins.
Iran’s leaders warned that U.S. entry into the conflict would trigger retaliation. That threat still stands. Tehran may seek to block the Strait of Hormuz, which would ignite a global oil crisis. It could attack U.S. bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq or elsewhere. It could activate Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other proxies, plunging the region into further chaos.
Any of these moves would represent a dramatic escalation, and potentially mire the U.S. and Israel in a painful, prolonged war.
But if Iran chooses that path, the consequences may be fatal for the regime.
In a war with the U.S., Trump’s response would not be limited to infrastructure or enrichment sites, but would almost certainly target the regime’s political and military control centers, communications nodes and symbols of power. Regime change might not be the stated aim, but it will become the strategic outcome. Tehran’s rulers would be foolish to test this.
If the regime, understanding those stakes, chooses negotiation, the U.S. and Israel must be ready to pivot swiftly from force to leverage. Their strikes have already demonstrated overwhelming superiority. They have also revealed that Iran’s strategic deterrence was more of a front than some suspected.
That alone marks a seismic shift in the region’s balance of power — and it must be consolidated not through further bombing, but rather through smart diplomacy with iron conditions.
What should follow are negotiations that leave Iran isolated, weakened and exposed. The U.S. and Israel should demand not only an abrogation of any further nuclear ambitions on the part of Iran, but also the end of its project of spreading chaos around the Middle East via proxy militias.
These demands could help spark regime change in Iran, without a war. The regime’s legitimacy at home is already fragile. Any further humiliation or economic collapse could trigger internal unrest — or even a palace coup from within the Revolutionary Guard or security services.
A change in Iranian leadership would be welcome. It might help Lebanon finally disarm Hezbollah, opening the door for that country to receive long-blocked Gulf aid. With the Houthis no longer receiving funding from Iran, Yemen’s government could reclaim its territory and restore safe passage through the Red Sea.
And the outlook of the ongoing Gaza crisis could shift. Without Iran’s backing, Hamas would be newly vulnerable to pressure from other Arab states to surrender, perhaps enabling the Palestinian Authority to reassert control with regional backing.
These developments could, in turn, pave the way in Israel for an expanded Abraham Accords — not just with Saudi Arabia, but potentially even with Syria under its new leadership.
All of which is to say that the collapse of Iran’s regional influence would create the kind of momentum for peace in the Middle East not seen in a generation. Successful negotiations will help achieve that outcome. If the Western powers tell the regime that it will be allowed to survive, but only if all the above conditions are accepted, some version of the revolution that generally brings down a dictatorship — which is a palace coup by the men with guns — is likely to follow.
The Islamic Republic is a tyranny loathed by its own people, that has badly overreached in imperial ambitions, and its days are probably numbered.
